Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Impact Report EIR 348c~ SEE `10LUNiE I[ FOR CHAPTERS lL 1'HFt~3JG~ l[V OF 7'HE CAMPOS ~ER:AES SPECIFIC IPI.AN. 'd`I~ 7[`ECHIVICAL .~PPEN]DICES, _~'OR ~A1VTP0~ $~ERDES MAY BE FOiJIVD IN ~10LUNIE Bl[]f. F ~ ` ,' CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E:I~R. Screencheck S.P./E.I.R.: Julv 18. 1991 Second Screencheck Submitted: March 3. 1992 Draft S.P./E.I.R. Submitted: 7-9-92: 12-15-92: 1-27-93: 3-5-93: 5-2-94 pl „Wing Commission Approval: July 18. 1994 City Council Approval: September 13. 1994 V.l~®eJ` ~Y 1Pe1LU,~1Pa~ ~Dm~.iF~ ~~~~n~~ IF'll~.lrn I~®o Il ~.~n~l ~lr°~iF~ IE~I~, ~®o ~4~ ~~giI~ ~~®~®~~~ 7D7f~ 77e u , e,{r l ~~ o p77 eR~d, ,,{{b vvy J[S.`li.Jll'.'li. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202 Temecula, California 92591 (909) 694-0666 Contact Person: Dennis Chiniaeff O Prepared by: 'll'$tIB ]PLANNING CONSULTANTS, ][NC. Planning Consultants 3242 Halladay, Suite 100 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 662-2774 Contact Person: Barry Burnell In Association with: Wilbur Smith Associates, Traffic Engineering NBS Lowry, Civil Engineering Nuttall-Uchizono, Architecture HRP LanDesign, Landcape Architecture Converse Consultants, Geotechnical Douglas Wood & Associates, Environmental Analysis Natelson, Levander & Whitney, Fiscal Analysis Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA O Contact Planner: Debbie Ubnoske (714)694-6400 Adopted on September 13, 1994 ~A~LE ®~ ~®rrr1EN~S SECTION PAGE Note: See Volume I for Chapters I through IV of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The Technical Appendices for Campos Verdes may be found in Volume III. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............ ....... V-1 A. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DETERMINATION SYSTEM ....... ....... V-1 1. Site Identification Within Open Space and Conserva- tion Map Inventory ............................. .......V-1 2. Site Identification Within Composite/Resources Inven- tory ...................................... .......V-1 3. Land Use Planning Area Profile and Community Policy Area Identification for ....................... ....... V-2 -O a. Southwest Territory .................... b. Community Policy Area ................. ....... V-2 ....... V-2 c. Southwest Area Plan ................... ....... V-3 4. Land Use Determination ..................... ...... V-11 B. LAND USE ELEMENT .............................. ...... V-12 1. Land Use Planning Area Policy Analysis ......... ...... V-12 2. Land Use Category Policy Analysis .............. ...... V-13 C. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ELEMENT (EXIST- ING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS, GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP AND MITIGATIONS) ................................... ......V-15 1. Seismic Safety ............................. ...... V-15 2. Slopes and Erosion .......................... ...... V-20 3. Wind Erosion and Blowsand ................... ...... V-28 4. Flooding .................................. ......V-30 5. Noise .................................... ......V-34 6. Climate and Air Quality ...................... ...... V-49 7. Water Quality .............................. ...... V-57 8. Toxic Substance ............................ ...... V-60 9. Agriculture ................................ ...... V-63 10. Open Space and Conservation .................. ...... V-69 11. Wildlife/Vegetation .......................... ...... V-76 12. Energy Resources ........................... ...... V-84 O. TABLE OF CONTENTS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN No. UE .LR. NO.348 i SECTION PAGE O 13. Scenic Highways ............................ ...... V-86 14. Cultural and Scientific Resources ............... ...... V-89 D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ..................... ...... V-93 1. Circulation ................................ ...... V-93 2. Water and Sewer ........................... ..... V-119 3. Fire Services ............................... ..... V-124 4. Sheriff Services ............................. ..... V-127 5. Schools ................................... .....V-130 6. Parks and Recreation ........................ ..... V-133 7. Utilities .................................. .....V-137 8. Solid Waste ............................... ..... V-140 9. Libraries .................................. ..... V-144 10. Health Services ............................ ..... V-146 11. Light and Glare ............................ ..... V-148 12. Disaster Preparedness ....................... ..... V-150 E. HOUSING ELEMENT ............................... ..... V-152 1. General Plan Policies ........................ ..... V-152 a. Applicable Housing Programs ............. ..... V-152 b. Applicable Housing Policies Within Other Ele- ments ............................... .....V-153 1) Affordable Housing Incentives ....... ..... V-153 2. Specific Plan ............................... .....V-154 a. Project Relationship to General Plan Policies . ..... V-154 1) Project Housing Inventory .......... ..... V-154 2) Project Compatibility With Existing Inventory ............................ V-154 3) Project Design Mitigation ................ V-154 F. REGIONAL ELEMENT ................................... . 1. Regional Growth (SCAG) Forecasts .................. . a. Identification of Regional Growth Forecasts for Project Site ............................... . b. RSA/Land Use Planning Area Profile ........... . c. Project Growth Forecast Comparative Analysis with Regional Growth Forecast ................... . 2. Applicable Employment/Housing Balance Policies ....... . G. ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT .............................. . 1. Land Use Policies/Specific Plan Time-Frames -Project Time-Frames for Development ..................... . 2. Fiscal Impact Summary .......................... . V-155 V-155 V-155 V-155 V-156 V-157 V-158 V-158 V-158 VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. ii O SECTION PAGE H. MANDATORY CEQA Topics ......................... ..... V-160 1. Cumulative Impact Analysis ................... ..... V-160 2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................. ..... V-170 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ............. ..... V-173 4. Growth Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action .... ..... V-196 5. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ......... ..... V-197 6. Irreversible/Irretrievable Commmitment of Energy Supplies and Other Resources Should the Project be Implemented ............................... .....V-198 7. Organizations and Persons Consulted ............ ..... V-199 O O TABLE OF CONTENTS CiAMP03 VERDi''S SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E .LR. NO. 348 iii ]Lg~T ®~ ]FII~UR~~ FIGURE O PAGE Note: Figures II-1 through III-26B m¢y be found in Volume I of the three volume set th¢t comprises the C¢mpos Verdes Specific Pl¢n, EIR, Technic¢l Appendices, ¢nd other ¢ssorted documents. V-1 Geology .......................................... ....V-21 V-2 Elevation Analysis .................................. .... V-22 V-3 Slope Analysis ..................................... .... V-23 V-4 Hydrology Plan .................................... .... V-31 V-5 Future On-Site CNEL Noise Levels ..................... .... V-46 V-6 Soils Map ........................................ ....V-64 V-7 Project Site and Surrounding Zoning .................... .... V-70 V-8 S.W.A.P. Designations ............................... .... V-71 V-9 Surrounding Land Uses .............................. .... V-72 V-10 Biology .......................................... ....V-77 V-11 Existing TrafficlRoadway Characteristics ................. .... V-94 V-12 Circulation Element Riverside County General Plan ........ .... V-97 V-13 Anticipated Transportation System ..................... .... V-99 V-14 Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic ...................... O ... V-102 V-15 Projected Daily Traffic Year 2000 with Project ............ ... V-103 V-16 Projected Daily Traffic Year 2000 with Project and without Regional Center .................................... ...V-104 V-17 Roadway Segment Service Levels Year 2000 with Project .... ... V-106 V-18 Roadway Segment Service Levels Year 2000 with Project and without Regional Center ............................ ....V-107 V-19 Recommended Future Circulation System ............... .... V-117 V-20 Cumulative Projects ............................... .... V-161 V-21 Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 .................... .... V-179 V-22 Reduced Density Alternative No. 2 .................... .... V-183 V-23 Increased Office/Commercial Alternative ................ .... V-188 V-24 Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative ................. .... V-191 CAMPOS VERDI' S SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. iv O ILYST ®F '~AEI.ES TABLE PAGE Note: T¢bles I through IIC-1 m¢y be found in Volume I of the three volume set th¢t comprises the Campos Verdes Speci/ic Pl¢n, EIR, Technic¢l Appendices, ¢nd other ¢ssorted documents. O O III Existing Noise Levels ................................. .. V-36 IV Traffic CNEL Noise Levels ............................. .. V-38 V Future Noise Levels with the Project ...................... .. V-41 VI Air Quality Levels Measured at Perris Ambient Air Monitoring Station ............................................ ..V-50 VII Emission Rates for Grading Scraper ...................... .. V-51 VIII Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emissions for Export of Dirt ........ .. V-52 D~ Motor Vehicle Emissions ............................... .. V-53 X Power Plant Emissions ................................ .. V-54 XI Natural Gas Emissions ................................ .. V-54 XII Soil Associations On-Site ............................... .. V-63 XIII Vehicle Trip Generation Summary ........................ . V=100 XIV Campos Verdes ICU Summary .......................... . V-109 XV Fiscal Impact Summary ................................ . V-156 XVI Cumulative Projects .................................. . V-162 TABLE OF CONTENTS CiAMP09 VEIi.DEB SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 v O ~e ~~ ]ENVa~a.®Nl+~NTA><. ArrAL~SgS ~. ~irENERAI, IPI.AIV F.AND g1SE ~ETERIlTIIVATIOIV g'YSTEM The following section describes the process and results of a review for consistency with the City of Temecula's applicable General Plan Goals and Policies. The City of Temecula does not currently have an adopted General Plan document for use in this review. Therefore, in the absence of a City prepared and adopted General Plan, the City has directed this section to be prepared using the County of Riverside's General Plan Determination System. Although the policies and goals discussed in this analysis are not City adopted, they will be used as guidelines by the Planning Commission and City Council for determination. This analysis, required by the County, is performed to determine the most appropriate General Plan land uses for the project site. This analysis incorporates the review of several General Plan exhibits displaying issues of environmen- tal and public service capability significance, and systematically unfolds those land use standards appropriate for the subject property. 1. SITE YDENTIFICATION WITIIIN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION 1VIAP O INVEN'T`ORY A review of the County's Open Space and Conservation Map reveals that the subject site is not within an area designated as Open Space or Conservation. According to the General Plan, if the subject site is not located within a specific open space or conserva- tion land use designation, then the determination system proceeds to Step II. 2. SITE iLENTIFICATION WITHIN COIVrnOSITE/RESOIJRCES INVENTORY According to the County of Riverside's Composite Environmental Hazards Map, the Campos Verdes site is identified as lying within Groundshaking Zone II. The site is outside the boundary of a "Liquefaction Hazard" area. The site is also identified as being within the Dam Inundation area of Skinner Dam. It does not lie within the 100-year floodplain of Santa Gertrudis Creek. According to the County Typical Noise Contours for Major Highways,the site may be exposed to potential noise hazard due to its location adjacent to Winchester Road. The Campos Verdes' designations within the Environmental Resources Element of the General Plan for on-site resources are discussed below. The County-wide Agricultural Resources Map identifies the site as containing some "Local Important Farmland". O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN No. 1/E.I.R. No. 348 V-1 The County Map of Endangered, Rare and Threatened Wildlife Ranges and O Habitats identifies all of western Riverside County (including the project site) as lying within the range of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat, an endangered species. As stated in the County's General Plan, where only a portion of a site has specified limits on land use, the specified limits apply to only the identified portion of the site. Therefore, the land use of the remaining portions of the project site are to be determined by the remaining steps of the Determination System. 3. The Comprehensive General Plan outlines several Land Use Planning Area Profiles, providing background information for each planning area including: a general description; population and housing statistics; growth and land use forecasts; land use potential and constraints; and trends and adopted Specific Plans. The Couat~s five-year forecasts are intended to guide infrastructural development to support expected growth in all planning areas. a. Southwest Territory The project site is located in the central portion of the Southwest Territory Planning Area. This area is comprised of approximately 482 square miles bounded on the south by San Diego County and on the west by Orange County and the Cleveland National O Forest. b. Community Policy Area To determine the Land Use Category, the General Plan specifies that this discussion review the growth forecasts for population and housing, land use potential, land use constraints, area-wide land use description, the applicable sub-area description and any applicable community land use policies. A review of the Southwest Territory's Growth Forecasts reveals that the area is estimated at reaching a population of 142, 439 by year 2010. The following are the population and housing forecasts at 5-year intervals through this projection period: 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Population 42,657 57,664 77,949 105,371 142,439 Housing (units) 20,220 26,912 35,818 47,672 63,440 The Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area is conducive to accommodating the above forecasted growth due to the following reasons: 1) Improvements to I-15 and I-215 V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMP09 VERDE3 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R.. NO. 348 v-z O and surrounding transportation systems; 2) Improvements to the Rancho California community water and sewer systems via recent development projects; 3) Proximity to neighboring employment centers in Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties, and 4) Relatively lower housing costs and lower priced industrial land. _In addition to the above description of development potential, there are also concerns sited in the General Plan which may constrain the subject site. The area's population growth may place burdens on under-developed public services and facilities, and the area is characterized by a variety of environmental issues including topography, potable water concerns, seismic and flooding hazards, impacts on various cultural and biological resources and impacts to the Palomar Observatory. .The site is located within an urbanizing corridor through the Elsinore Valley, Sedo- Wildomar, Murrieta Hot Springs and Rancho California-Temecula area along Interstate 15. As mentioned previously, these areas are projected to, experience significant ..population growth in the next two decades. In November of 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP), which applies to the approximately same area covered by the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area within the Count}~s General Plan. As a result of the adoption of SWAP, those policies previously addressed through the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area, are now addressed through SWAP. The O following discussion within Step 3 of this Determination Analysis will analyze those policies. c. Southwest Area Plan SWAP was developed to provide additional land use goals and policies that address the unique land use characteristics and issues within this area of the County, and is intended to further the implementation of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. According to the Southwest Area Community Plan Growth Management Concept, the Campos Verdes Specific Plan site is located within the City of Temecula. More specifically the Campos Verdes site is designated as: Commercial, Office-Commercial, 2-5 du/ac and 8-16 du/ac. Section VA. of the SWAP contains policies which are general and apply to a number of land use categories within the SWAP area. The following analysis addresses those policies as they pertain to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan site. ^O Policy: Zoning consistent with the SWAP as provided in the Zoning Consistency Guidelines, FSgure II.28.2, shall be applied throughout the SWAP area. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPO3 VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO.348 V-3 Consistency: The Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes S.P. Zoning generally consistent with SWAP designations as depicted on both Figures III-1, Specific Land Use Plan and the SWAP Land Uae Allocation Map. With the approval of S.P. No. 1, the General Plan and SWAP will reflect the "Adopted Specific Plan's" designation per approval of this Specific Plan. O Policy: Proposed land uses will be reviewed for compatibility in light of effisting and approved land uses within the surrounding area. Additional factors which will enter into the review for compatibility include the intensity of use, hazards, nuisances, aesthetics and design. Consistency: The Campos Verdes Specific Plan prapoaea land uses consistent with surrounding e>asting and approved land uses in terms of use, hazards, nuisances, aesthetics and design. For detailed discussion of these issues please see Section V.C. within this document. O Policy: Drought tolerant and non-toxic plant materials shall be utilized for street trees and landscaping. Consistency: The Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes the use of drought tolerant and non-tonic plant materials for street trees and landscaping. For detailed discussion of these issues please see Section IV.B. within this document. O Policy: All street lights and other outdoor lighting on electrical plans shall be O submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of all applicable City of Temecula Ordinances and Policies. Consistency: The Campos Verdes Specific Plan shall comply with all City of Temecula applicable Ordinances and Policies. ~ Policy: Approval of any residential project requires the site be annexed into an existing parks and recreation district or CSA providing park services. Consistency: The Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be located within the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). ^O Policy: Archaeological surveys by a qualified archaeologist shall be conducted on all undisturbed, vacant lands or agricultural lands as part of the environ- mental review process. Prior to approval of any development proposal, mitigation shall be incorporated into the design of the project. V. GENERAI. PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPO3 VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO.34S V-4 O Consistency: As part of the preparatory process for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, a cultural resources survey was conducted and recommended mitigation measures were established. Please see the Technical Appendi- ces for further detail. O Policy: Paleontological surveys by a qualified paleontologist shall be conducted within areas of known and potential resources, as part of the environ- mental review process. Prior to approval of any development proposal, mitigation shall be incorporated into the design of the project. Consistency: The Technical Appendices includes a detailed Paleontological Survey performed on the project site, and recommended mitigation measures. ~ Policy: A road maintenance district should be created in order to repair and maintain roads that are not City-maintained. Consistency: The Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes the construction of public roads. Public roads have been designed to County Standards for dedication and will be maintained by the City and/or the County. ~ Policy: All new residential structures shall not be subject to interior noise levels greater than 45 decibels. O Consistency: All residential structures will be designed and built so that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 decibels. O Policy: When residential development abuts ground-based noise generators, such as highways and commercia]/manufacturing activities, sound absorbing walls, berms, setbacks or other appropriate measures to limit exterior noise levels to no greater than 60 decibels shall be required. Consistency: The use of walls and landscaped setback areas will be used to limit exterior noise levels to no greater than 60 decibels in residential areas. o^ Policy: All residential development shall provide landscape treatments adjacent to secondary or larger highways. The perpetual ownership and mainte- nance of this landscaping shall be ensured by a homeowners association, the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) or other means approved by the City of Temecula. Consistency: The project will provide landscape treatments along Winchester Road, Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-5 O Policy: An additiona125-foot transportation easement dedicated to the City shall be required of all projects along Hwy. 79 (Winchester Road) for future traffic mitigation programs. This easement may be used for additional parking and/or landscaping until such time as it is needed for transporta- tion improvements. Consistency: The Campos Verdes Specific Plan shall dedicate a 25 foot transpor- tation easement along Highway 79 (Winchester Road) to the City of Temecula for future traffic mitigation programs. ~ Policy: The target Level of Services (LOS) for the SWAP shall be LOS "C" with a peak LOS "D" (LOS C/D). Consistency: Project traffic is projected to operate at a Level of Service "C" or better. There are some roadway segments which will operate at a Level of Service of "D", "E" or "F", please refer to Section V.C for further informa- tion. Section V.B. of SWAP consists of land use policies for specific designations used on the SWAP Allocation Map. As shown on the SWAP Allocation Map, the site has been designated with land uses generally considered Category I -Heavy Urban; Category II - Light Urban, Commercial and Office Commercial. In addition, the project site has been included within the City of Temecula on the SWAP Growth Management Concept Map. O The following analysis addresses those specific policies highlighted within SWAP. ~ategox~_y >< - ~Ieaw BJrban Residential Policies ~ Policy: Provided that residential development policies and standards are met, density allocations range from 8 to a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre. Development densities shall reflect the stated ranges on the land use allocation map, and be neither more than the high end nor leas than the low end of the designated range, unless less intense development is required for environmental or land use compatibility purposes. Consistency: The proposed Campos Verdes project is inconsistent with the stated language of SWAP, but is generally consistent with the overall intent of the SWAP designations assigned to the site. It should be noted that the Very High density of 17.0 du/ac proposed on 37.9 acres of the site exceeds the current SWAP designation of "8-16 du/ac'". However, the "Medium" and "Medium Low" density portions of the site are proposed at a combined density of 4.2 du/ac which is lower than the maximum that is allowed by the "2-5 du/ac" SWAP designation assigned to those areas. Therefore, when averaged over the entire site on a gross acreage basis, the Campos V. GENERAL PLANlENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. No. 348 V-6 O Verdes project achieves an overall density which is generally consistent with the overall intent of SWAP. O Policy: All heavy urban land uses shall be required to have a full range of public services, as described in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, including adequate and available circulation, water distribution, sewage collection and utilities, including natural gas and/or electricity, telephone and waste disposal services. Consistency: Adequate facilities and services will be .available to serve the proposed Campos Verdes project. ~~ Policy: All heavy urban land uses shall be a part of a water and sewer district which is authorized to provide water and sewer service. Consistency: The project lies within the service boundaries of the Rancho California Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water District for water and sewer services, respectively. O Policy: Commitments for water and sewer service shall be confirmed by the district responsible for providing service. O Consistency: Prior to the recordation of final tract maps, the Rancho California Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water District shall provide "Will-Serue" letters for the proposed project. D Policy: Adequate and available water and sewer capacity shall exist at the time of construction to meet the demands of a proposed project. Consistency: The proposed project is located within the Winchester Assessment District, for which a Sewer Master Plan Study is being prepared. The sewer facilities identified by this Study will exist at the time of the project construction. In addition, the water facilities needed to serve the project will also be in place prior to project construction. Q Policy: Amenity features, such as open space and neighborhood parks, shall be provided throughout all heavy urban residential land uses. Consistency: A 13.5 acre park site is proposed within the area designated by the SWAP for "5-16 du/ac'". This satisfies the City's requirements for park acreage for the entire Campos Verdes project. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO.348 V-7 ~at~~®a°v ~II ~ lLx~ht ~.Tr~axn IEB.esa~flentir~Il ]E'®laCY~ffi O O Policy: Provided that residential development policies and standards are met, density allocations range from 2 to 8 dwelling unite per acre. The development densities shall reflect the stated ranges on the land use allocation map, and be neither more than the high end nor less than the low end of the designated range. Less intense development, however, may be required for environmental and land use compatibility. Consistency: The appro~mately 48.1 acres of the site which are designated by the SWAP for "2-8 du/ac" are proposed for development with 206 dwelling units, or a gross density of 4.2 du/ac. This density is within the range permitted by the SWAP. ^D Policy: All urban land uses shall be required to have a full range of public services, as described in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, including adequate and available circulation, water distribution, sewage collection and utilities, including natural gas and/or electricity, telephone and waste disposal. Consistency: Adequate facilities and services will be available to serve the proposed Campos Verdes project. O Policy: All urban land uses shall be a part of a water and sewer district which is O authorized to provide water and sewer service. Consistency: The project lies within the service boundaries of the Rancho California Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water District for water and sewer services, respectively. ^O Policy: Commitments for water and sewer service shall be confirmed by the district responsible for providing service. Consistency: Prior to the recordation of final tract maps, the Rancho California Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water District shall provide "Will-Serve" letters for the proposed project. O Policy: Adequate and available water and sewer capacity shall exist at the time of construction to meet the demands of a proposed project. Consistency: The proposed project is located within the Winchester Assessment District, for which a Sewer Master Plan Study is being prepared. The sewer facilities identified by this study will exist at the time of project V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN 1V0. 1/E.I.R.1V0.34f; V-8 O construction. In addition, the water facilities needed to serve the project will also be in place prior to project construction. ~ Policy: Dry sewers should be installed if it is anticipated that development beyond the subject development will require such facilities. Consistency: The Campos Verdes project will provide sewer lines on-site in accordance with the Master Sewer Plan presently being prepared for the Winchester Assessment District. As the Master Plan is assessing future needs for the entire Assessment District, proposed facilities will include adequate facilities and/or capacity for potential development beyond the subject development. D Policy: Amenity features, such as open space and neighborhood parka, shall be provided throughout all urban land uses. Consistency: A 13.5 acre park site is proposed within the area designated by the SWAP for "8-16 du/ac'". This satisfies the Quimby Act requirements of the City for park acreage for the entire Campos Verdes project. commercial ~®licies O O Policy: A variety of commercial uses (generally those uses permitted in the C-1/C-P and C-P-S zones), including highway-oriented commercial, service commercial, neighborhood commercial and regional commercial, are permitted. Consistency: The project proposes C-1/C-P zoning within the area designated "Commercial" by the SWAP, in accordance with the above Policy. O Policy: The growth of commercial uses into compact, well-organized and accessible centers with adequate parking and circulation shall be encour- aged. Consistency: The proposed center shall meet the criteria of this policy. ^D Policy: New developments shall be compatible with surrounding land use. Consistency: The area proposed for "Commercial" use is at the intersection of Margarita Road and Winchester Road, and is adjacent to proposed multi- family use on the east. Landscaped slopes separate the commercial area from the multi-family use. These proposed multi-family residential uses are considered compatible with the proposed commercial use. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONhfENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. No. 348 V-9 O Policy: Any commercial development proposal, including any land division of 30 O acres or larger in size shall be approved as a "Planned Commercial Development" as provided in Ordinances No's. 348 and 460. Any proposal of 100 acres or greatzr should be approved as a Specific Plan of Laad Use. Consistency: The project proposes 13.5 acres of commercial uses and does not, therefore, meet the criteria for Planned Commercial Development or Specific Plan of Land Use. ®~l'l~Pi ~i®YIIYYI~Y'Q918)L l~®l1C.H~.Q ~ Policy: The Office Commercial designation is applied to areas where, due to traffic and circulation impacts or potential land use incompatibilities, commercial uses must be limited to those which generate low traffic volumes, or result in limited commercial activity and operate primarily during daylight hours, such as professional offices. It excludes hotels, motels, fast food, major restaurants (except support food service such as walk-up service, snack bars, employee's cafeteria), service stations and similar uses. Consistency: The proposed commerciaUoffice area will include uses which meet the criteria of this policy. O Policy: The growth of commerciaUoffice uses into compact, well-organized and accessible centers with adequate parking and circulation shall be encour- aged. Consistency: The proposed commerciaUoffice center shall meet the criteria of this policy. ~ Policy: New developments shall be compatible with surrounding land use. Consistency: The area proposed for commerciaUoffice use is at the intersection of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road, and is adjacent to proposed park/detention basin on the east. Undeveloped area to the south is also designated for commerciaUoffice use by the SWAP. These proposed park/detention basin and future commerciaUoffice uses are considered compatible with the proposed project. D Policy: Any commerciaUoffice development proposal, including any land division of 30 acres or larger in size, shall be approved as a "Planned Commer- ciaUOffice Development" as provided in Ordinance No's. 348 and 460. Any O V. GENERAL PLANIENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. No. 348 V-10 0 proposal of 100 acres or greater should be approved as a Specific Plan of Land Use. Consistency: The project proposes 10.4 acres of commercial/o~ce uses and does not, therefore, meet the criteria for Planned Commercial Development or Specific Plan of Land Use. O 4. LAND USE DETERA7[INATION Per the standards and policies outlined within the Riverside County General Plan Land Use Determination System, the subject development proposal has been analyzed addressing Steps One, Two and Three and addressing all applicable land use policies within the Southwest Area Community Plan. As stated in the Comprehensive General Plan, "A Community Land Use Policy Area with a Land Use Allocation Map will not require the use of Step Four of the Land Use Determination System." The land uses proposed within the Campos consistent with those uses allocated for the Plan Land Use Allocation Map. Verdes Specific Plan are determined to be site under the Southwest Area Community O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-11 ~e RJl91aLl~ 1~1 ~7E ~Ld~IYJ.L~1V ^ O 1. LAND USE PLANNING AREA POLICY ANALY3I3 This proposed project is located within the City of Temecula. Under the direction of the City, this analysis studies the County of Riverside's General Plan policies for use as guideline standards and policies for review. The site is located within the area directed by the County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) which occupies approximately 482 square miles. This Planning Area comprises the entire Murrieta Census Division and m$jority of the Elsinore Valley Census Division, excluding census tract 419.02 As of September 1983, the County had adopted the following Specific Pan within this Land Use Planning Area: S.P. 103 (Murrieta Hot Springs); S.P. 106 (Dutch Village); S.P. 116 (The Farm); S.P. 117 (Pala Village); S.P. 128 (Joaquin Ranch); S.P. 149 (Rancho California Plaza); S.P. 152 (Horsethief Canyon); S.P. 155, S.P. 156 (Rancho Las Brises), and S.P. 171 (Wolf Valley). Since 1983, the County of Riverside has approved other specific plans in the vicinity of this project. These additional, nearby specific plans include: S.P. 173 (California Oaks); S.P. 184 (Rancho Bella Vista); S.P. 213 (Winchester Property); S.P. 220 (Warm Springs); S.P. 172 (Walker Basin); S.P. 164 (Roripaugh Estates); S.P. 180 (Rancho Highlands); S.P. 199 (Margarita Village); S.P. 215 (Vineyard); S.P. 217 (Red Hawk); S.P. 219 (Meadows) and S.P. 223 (Vail Ranch). These specific plans, when implemented, will provide an additiona135,696 residential units in this Planning Area. I3o information was available for Riverside County Planning Department, Building and Safety, or the City of Temecula O as to the number of units constructed for each adopted Specific Plan. Data provided in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan provides the project growth forecasts of this area as of 1980. These forecasts were as follows. The 1980 Census statistical data showed that the population for the SWAP was 21,435. The SCAG-89 population forecast estimates that this Land Use Planning Area will reach a population level of 142,439 by the year 2010. The following are the population and housing forecasts for the unincorporated portion of the SWAP until the year 2010: 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Population 42,657 57,664 77,949 105,371 142,439 Housing (units) 20,220 26,912 35,818 47,672 63,440 An EIR prepared for the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP), provides an analysis of the anticipated growth in the area. Based on that analysis, it was estimated that the Southwest Area is expected to have a population of approximately 142,439 by the year 2010. These data indicate that the project area is experiencing growth at a rate which exceeds the 1983 projections provided in the General Plan. V. GExEaAL PLAN/ENVIxoNMENTAL ANALYSis O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN 1V0. 1/E.Lft. Alo. 348 V-12 O According to the General Plan, the SWAP exhibits a number of characteristics conducive to accommodating the forecasted growth. These characteristics include: Recent improvements to I-15 and I-215 freeway corridors. These corridors provide access to San Diego and Orange Counties and the cities of Lake Elsinore, Norco, Corona and Riverside. Improvements to the community water system in Temecula. Proximity to employment bases in Orange and San Diego Counties. Relatively lower housing coats and lower priced industrial land. Improvements to community sewer facilities in the Temecula. Increased industrial development potential with completion of I-15 to San Diego. Increased demand for housing with recent improvement to freeway system. Desirable air quality in Temecula. The creation of a large nature preserve in the Rancho Santa Roea area. O There are, however, concerns that could constrain land uses in some portions of the SWAP. Rapid and large population increases have placed heavy burdens on public services, schools, sewer system, flood control facilities and paved local roads. Topography and a variety of other environmental issues are major factors affecting development in the area. Some of these factors include: slopes in excess of 25%, lack of potable water, seismic and flooding hazards, limited fire protection services, various cultural and biological resources such as vernal pools, raptors, and Stephen's kangaroo rat, and impacts to the Palomar Observatory from mercury vapor and unshielded night lighting. These constraints and their relationship to this project have been briefly analyzed in the preceding General Plan Land Use Determination discussion, and will be analyzed in greater detail in the following environmental analysis. 2. LAND YTSE CATEGORY POLICY ANALYSIS . The proposed project exhibits the characteristics of Category I and Category II development in conformance with the land use designations and policies as adopted O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 34l1 V-13 within the Southwest Area Plan. Category I and Category II type developments require O a full range of public services because of the type and density of development. This EIR evaluates the project's potential impacts to these public services and the project's relationship to the General Plan. The document also identifies mitigation measures which will reduce potential impacts to a level of non-significance where possible. The analysis of this project's potential impacts to public services are evaluated in the appropriate public services sections of this document. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPUS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN 1V0. 1/E.I.R.1V0.34d V-14 o ~. ~~~~ ~®p~~(~~~~7~r~7~T ~~(~7~7~p~ry~~ ~®~.~~~~~p7~7~~~~~ 7~~m~w7~~ii p~ 1~L J71~1~7 ~L~AT 7~p1/~7®7~7~p 1pL71~7L~ J~l®~~17V7~r~~g7~~(lllpiVrll~l7~~CilYp.~~ 1L ~q ~~~1L01 il1L~ 1~ LiL'+11~7 1LO.lUlli[i11L 1L®iV ~lOL1Ll~ t111V1W 1V1L1L 1L 1LVAL711L JL®1V ~~. SEYS1VtYC SAFE1'I' The information contained below is a summary of the "Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tracts 25213, 25214, 25215 Campos Verdes Residential Development, Temecula, California," prepared by Converse Consultants Inland Empire dated May 10, 1990. This report is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix B, to this document. a. Existing' Conditions The site lies within a region of generally high seismicity as does all of Southern California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience ground motion from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The dominant structural feature in the area is the northwest-striking Elsinore Fault Zone. This fault zone coincides with the dominant northwest-southwest structural and regional tectonic patterns displayed by other fault systems including the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault Zone. O The Elsinore Fault Zone -divided into three principal northwest-trending faults, the Wildomar Fault Zone, the Willard Fault Zone, and the Mumeta Hot Springs Fault Zone, is a predominant and youthful structural boundary that separates the Perris Block along its eastern side from the Santa Ana Mountains along its western side. Two of theee faults, the Wildomaz and the Murrieta Hot Springs Faults are within close proximity to the project site. These faults aze discussed below. The Murrieta Hot Shrines Fault Zone -this zone has been mapped by Kennedy and others, 1977, as being nearly continuous from the southeast portion of Murrieta to Murrieta Hot Springs. This fault is not currently classified as an active fault by State or local agencies. However, recent evidence of Holocene Age activity has been recognized by State and local agencies, therefore, it is suspected that the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault may be classified as active at a future date. This fault is located 1.6 miles north of the project site. The Wildomar Fault Zone -this zone is anorthwest-striking, west-dipping, high-angle normal fault. This fault zone is presently included within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. This fault is located approximately 1 mile to the southwest of the project site. The main trace of the Wildomaz Fault, despite greater microseismicity, is assumed to have a recurrence interval of 300-450 years. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-15 No known active faults project toward or extend through the site. The site is not located within a designated State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The table below, Seismic Characteristics of Regional Faults, lists regionally-known active faults, their approximate distance from the site, their maximum probable earthquake magnitude and seismic pazameters for identified causative faults. A magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring on the Elsinore Fault (Wildomaz Branch) near the site could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.70g at the site. The duration of strong motion is expected to exceed 30 seconds. SEISRRIC C~.ARACTERISTICS ®F REQAI®NAL FAULTS Horizontal Ground Motion Parameters Maxiumum Min. Site Credible Max. Peak Strong Distance Eazthquake Rock Accel. Shaking Fault (Miles) (g) (seconds) 0 Elsinore O (Wildomaz) 1 7.5 0.70 25-35 Murrieta Hot Springs 1.6 7.0 0.69 23-30 San Jacinto 19 7.5 0.26 23-32 Whittier 29 7.5 0.19 23-30 San Andreas (South) 35 7.5 0.18 22-30 San Andreas (Central) 40 8.25 0.24 18-25 The maximum credible earthquake is the maximum seismic event a particular fault is theoretically capable of producing based upon existing geologic and seismologic evidence. The maximum credible event does not imply that an earthquake of that magnitude has V. GENERAL PLAN(ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPE IFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-16 or will occur along the particular fault, but simply implies that the potential for such an event does exist. Liquefaction Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength during a significant seismic event, occurring primarily in loose, fine to medium grained granular material in the presence of groundwater. Liquefaction occurs as soil particles are rearranging into a denser condition, which can result in localized areas of settlement, sand boils and flow failure. Soils with lazge fine contents (large amounts of silt or clay) generally do not liquefy during seismic events. Highly sensitive clays could be a possible exception; however, such clays were not observed on-site. The alluvial soils on-site consist primarily of clayey and silty sand with occasional layers of sand. The Pauba Formation bedrock consists of sandstone, claystone and siltstone. The sandstone generally has interbedded claystone and siltstone layers. Groundwater was encountered on the south-central and southeast section of the project at a depth as shallow as 23 feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater does not extend into the relatively shallow alluvium, but is limited to within the late Pleiostocene Age sedimentary bedrock. Based on the type of soils and depth to groundwater, any O liquefaction that might occur is likely to be confined to the relatively thin zones of deep saturated soils. Therefore, any minor liquefaction occurring on-site is not considered significant. Seismically Induced Flooding According to the Notice of Preparation for the project (contained as Technical Appendix A), the proposed project lies within a dam inundation area and may be subject to seismically induced flooding from a dam failure at Skinner Reservoir. The project site is located approximately six miles downstream of Skinner Reservoir within close proximity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Skinner Reservoir is utilized for domestic water storage, not for flood control purposes. The State of California Department of Water Resources has published an Inundation Map of Robert A. Skinner Dam which indicates that portions of the northeast side of the project would experience flooding during a dam failure. The inundation area illustrates the flood limits for a sudden release of all water from a full reservoir following catastrophic dam failure. Current requirements dictate that measures be undertaken to mitigate effects of such an event. b. Proiect Impacts/General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar Fault alignment which is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. l/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-17 project. As previously mentioned, this fault zone is presently included within the O Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The project design has reflected State and local regulations with respect to the Wildomar Fault. It is possible that during a Richter magnitude 7.5 earthquake along the Elsinore Fault Zone (Wildomaz Branch) the site will experience a maximum peak ground acceleration in bedrock of 0.70g. Due to the content of on-site soils and the depth of groundwater, secondary seismic hazards such as liquefaction, if any, that may occur will be confined to the relatively thin zones of deep saturated soils. Any minor liquefaction occurring on-site is considered insignificant and is not anticipated to cause damage or collapse of on-site structures. Aa stated earlier, a portion of the Campos Verdes site lies within a dam inundation area and may be subject to seismically induced flooding from dam failure. As discussed in Section V.G.2, this is an unavoidable adverse impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared for the project. Queneral Flan I~elationslup The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project O in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan" (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The objective of the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element -Seismic Safety Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan is to recognize seismic and geologic hazards as serious constraints in determining suitable land uses and structural design. This element contains land use standards for proposed sites which aze located within a potential liquefaction are per the County Seismic-Geologic Map, within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, a County Fault Hazard Zone, or within 150 feet of an active or potentially active fault. The following Seismic Safety -Land Use Standards are applicable to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan: 1. Liquefaction Hazards - If the proposed site is located in a County potential liquefaction azea on the County Seismic-Geologic Map, then submission of a geologic report to assess liquefaction hazards is required. The geologic study for the site included as Appendix B to this document indicates that if liquefaction occurs on-site it will be limited to the thin zones of deep saturated soils. On-site liquefaction is considered to be insignificant and is not anticipated to cause structural damage or collapse. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-18 O 2. Groundshakin¢ Zones -Development proposals are to be evaluated based on Groundshaking Zones. The site lies within Groundshaking Zone II, per the Seismic- Geologic Map. The Normal-Low Risk Land Uses proposed by the project are considered to be "Generally Suitable" for this zone category as indicated in Figure VI.4, Land Use Suitability in Liquefaction Potential Zones, and Figure VI.5, Land Use Suitability in Groundshaking Zones of the Comprehensive General Plan. c. Mitigation Measures 1. A detailed site investigation has been performed on the project site. As recommended by this investigation, design of on-site structures shall be in accordance with the criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code and County ordinances. Structures shall be designed to withstand earthshaking from the maximum credible earthquake that can be expected as well as secondary impacts resulting from ground shaking. 2. Due to liquefaction potential, the common mitigation procedures will include, but are not limited to, the use of compacted fill mat, gravel blankets, post-tensioned beds, and additional footing reinforcement. The design of this system shall be performed during the grading plan review process. 3. In order to mitigate potential inundation impacts associated with Skinner Dam, O an evacuation plan shall be developed and approved by FEMA. All affected final subdivision maps shall indicate that the proposed project lies in a potential inundation area. Mitigation of impacts related to dam inundation will involve coordination between the applicant and the County Disaster Preparedness Office in establishing emergency evacuation routes. This coordination and establishment of evacuation routes shall occur prior to Tentative Tract Map approval. Prospective homebuyers or land purchasers within affected Planning Areas shall receive written notice of the potential of dam inundation and respective evacuation routes in these Planning Areas. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation In spite of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to seismic safety (i.e. inundation due to the potential failure of Skinner Dam) is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-19 2. S%.®PES A1VD ER®SY®1V O The information contained below is a summary of a report entitled: "Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tracts 25213, 25214, 25215 Campos Verdes Residential Development, Temecula, California," prepared by Converse Consultants Inland Empire dated May 10, 1990. This report is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix B to this document. a. E~sting Conditions Topography across the site consists of low rolling hills and associated southwest-trending drainages with a maximum relief of about 100 feet. The site is located within the Peninsulaz Ranges Geomorphic Province east of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Peninsular Ranges extend southward from the Los Angeles Basin through Baja California, and aze chazacterized by large Mesozoic Age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic metasedimentary and sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges have a general northwest-trending structural gain that includes such geologic features as faults, bedding and foliation trends, and geologic contacts. Site elevations, as shown on Figure V-2, Elevation Analysis, range from between approximately 1,168 feet and 1,069 feet. As shown on Figure V-3, Slope Analysis, approximately 39.79 acres (30% of total project acreage) of the site have slopes in the 0 - 8% category, 29.90 acres (22% of the total project acreage) have slopes in the 9 -15% category, 32.56 acres (25% of total project acreage) have slopes in the 16 - 25% category, with the remaining 30.65 acres (23% of O total project acreage) having slopes greater than 25%. The actual site is underlain by bedrock materials of the Pauba Formation and alluvium which are locally mantled by topsoil. Artificial fill exists in the perimeter of the northwest portion of the site. These materials are shown on Figure V-1, Geology, as well as described below: Pauba Formation (Tn): The Pauba Formation of late-Pleistocene age (Kennedy, 1977) underlies the site. The formation consists of distal alluvial fan and braided channel deposits, with numerous intra-formational unconformities. Sedimentary features chazacter-istic of the depositional environment such as channel lag, scour and fill, and cross-bedding were observed on-site. Lithology of the Pauba Formation is highly variable, consisting of poorly bedded to massive, moderately to well consolidated, fine to coarse sandstones. The sandstones are alluvial channel-type deposits with lenses of gravelly sandstones, and interbeds of siltstone and silty claystone. Bedrock structure within the Pauba Formation can vary over a relatively short distance. Structural attitudes measured on-site indicate roughly horizontal bedding. V. GENERAL PLAN)ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O AMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1lE.I.R. NO. 348 V-20 O O U V u Z O ~ ~ w U ~~ U ~ a ao o ~ ~ p =~c U U2 NN ~O ~ ~ ~ a wa w wQ (T U > y aZ x xUr `/ w = = a ~ a~ a Orc O a ~ °u o d am a am N H Z J z O U w N 6' W Z U w K O `~/ J t=1 °~` O ~~_ a O O ~4 U ~ - 5 ee 3 ~ o ~„. s a s ~ a ~~:~ wU w ~ c ~"pi ox a ¢ c a w F as, •-.S f~ f a za uc a ~~ ZZ o ¢m as w~ nm vcv .d oao ~ ~~~ f{ ~ a \~ U a `u d /~ F W' J o w ® N //~ ~ O Y~~-~l ~ i. N n N Ci II\~/A/' C Ci Y }~ O O J Z Q Z O W W 0 z W W J - o ~ ° U E,< „_ ~_ a <a 3 :3 a d~Q, ?~ $ m ~a ~ as 0 v ev arm N w Q ~ (~} N ~ 7 O ~ J lq `q ~4:/ h a C.1 r~ F F o ® v N /~ N f , a 'l- ^- C ~ { e N . n N U O Ci 4~Q O O w ~ pi n U n n n n \~ a T J Z Q ~ N [NV N N O P ~ A _ W ~ a O W ~ ~ I ~ O .£';ii i" C n ~ M1 O ~ °c C7 °o HE 5c .C u.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a ~ ~3~~9 (~ ~. rvS ~ F ~§ ~~ Qo v ¢.v ~~ IAI~`n G "-1 y ~IJ P ~_ U F ~ /~ r o ® N /~ h a C h N v \ U N U Older Alluvium (Gaol): Older alluvium exists over much of the site and is overlain by a variable thickness of alluvium or topsoil (See below). These materials are classified as silty and/or clayey sands. Generally, the older alluvium is slightly moist to moist, medium dense, with numerous pinhole voids, decreasing with depth. The alluvium thickness ranges from approximately 2 feet to greater than 30 feet in the flood plain azea along the southern portion of the site. Alluvium Map (Qal): Alluvium was encountered in drainages throughout the project site. These materials are classified as silty to clayey sands. Generally, near the surface alluvium is dry to moist, loose, with numerous pinhole voids and organics with a thickness up to 22 feet. Artificial Fill (Af): Artificial fill exists near the northwest boundary where it was placed to construct a small reservoir. The fill consists of silty and clayey sands and is approximately 8 feet thick. No evidence of past grading of fill placement exists on-site. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan is considered feasible for the proposed residential and commercial development, provided that the generalized recommendations found in the "Geotechnical Investigation," included as Appendix B, and future geotechnical investigations are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed project. O Development of the Campos Verdes project will require alteration of the existing natural landform. Complete removal of all alluvial, topsoil, and loose compressible low strength older alluvium, and/or disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement of structural fills. Soils removed during the excavation procedures may be utilized as compacted fill, provided they have been stripped of organics and other deleterious materials. Cut and fill slopes will be designed and are anticipated to be stable at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Slopes of greater height as well as the final design of all cut and fill slopes will require approval during grading plan review. The geotechnical reports indicates that 35' fill slopes and 38' cut slopes are proposed. According to the Project Engineer, the proposed grading plan results in 2,616,743 cubic yazds of cut and 376,123 cubic yazds of fill. With appropriate permits the balance of earthwork will be relocated to the Temecula Regional Center proposed to the west of Campos Verdes. The extensive amount of cut proposed as well as the height of proposed slopes is not consistent with the Project Objectives presented in Section II.3, which states, "Consider topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and constraints to create a design that generally conforms to the character of the land". Due to the content of on-site soils slope erosion is a significant concern with regard to surficial stability. To alleviate this impact it is recommended that slopes be properly compacted and all cut and fill slopes be planted with erosion resistant vegetation or other protective devices immediately after grading. Most erosion problems are associated O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-24 with water. Drainage and erosion control measures should be established at the time of O final grading and maintained throughout the life of the project in order to provide long- term slope stability and performance. Queneral Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan (February 1990) does not include the azea within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following Land Use Standards -Slopes and Erosion from the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan are applicable to the project site: 1. Slone Hei¢hts and Contours -All cut and fill slopes or combinations thereof shall be made no steeper than 2:1 (two horizontal to one vertical), and their height shall be no greater than ten feet. Exceptions to these standards may be permitted if they are recommended to be safe in a slope stability report written by a soil engineer. The slope stability report must also include recommendations for erosion control and landscaping O of the proposed grading. In accordance with these standards, all cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical foot unless otherwise approved by the City. 2. Road Grades -Dedicated roads, shall be graded to a finished grade of no more than twelve (12) percent, or as recommended by the City Engineer. In accordance with these standards, all proposed on-site streets shall have a gradient not exceeding 12%. 3. Slone Stability and Landscape Plans -Where land uses are to be located on slopes subject to instability, erosion or slippage, an environmental assessment, rockfall study, a geologic report or engineering report may be required. In accordance with these standards, a geologic report for the project has been prepared and is included as Technical Appendix B. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. S48 V-25 O 4. Gradin¢ Plans -Grading is to be generally limited to provide stable areas for structural foundations, street right-of--ways, pazking facilities and other intended uses. Applications for development permits will provide an estimate of the development proposal's grading magnitude and slope contours of the site. Depending on the magnitude of the grading operation, the applicant may be required to submit a grading plan for City approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. As long as this detailed grading concept conforms to the Specific Plan, no further environmental analysis is necessary. In accordance with these standards, This environmental assessment has been prepared and detailed grading plans shall be prepared prior to any on-site grading. c. 1!'Yitigation 1Vleasures 1. Prior to grading, all surface trash and vegetation (including, but not limited to, heavy weed growth, trees, stumps, logs, and roots) shall be removed from the azeas to be graded. Organic materials resulting from the clearing and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off-site. Non-organic debris from site clearing may be disposed of of3--site or stockpiled for crushing and/or placement by approved methods in deeper fill azeas. 2. All alluvial, topsoil, loose compressible low strength older alluvium, and/or disturbed bedrock shall be removed prior to placement of structural fills. O 3. All cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) ratio unless otherwise approved by the City. 4. Fill slopes shall be properly compacted and all cut and fill slopes shall be planted with erosion resistant vegetation or other protective devices as soon as possible once grading occurs. 5. All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the Riverside County or City of Temecula Grading Standards including requirements for erosion control during rainy months. Standard engineering techniques will minimize the soil erosion and siltation potential to acceptable levels. Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall submit to the City of Temecula for review and approval, an erosion control program which indicates proper control of siltation, sedimentation and other pollutants. The erosion control program measures will include, but are not limited to, revegetation of cut and fill azeas, utilization of sediment control devices at construction sites, and diversion of storm runoff from development areas. All drainage will be conveyed in non- erosive drainage devices to suitable disposal points. Energy dissipation and methods for preventing scour and erosion should be part of any drainage improvements. 6. As development progresses, the project geologist shall continue consultation and construction monitoring as an extension of investigative services to date. If significant O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-26 design changes occur, it maybe necessary to augment, or modify, the recommendations O presented in the "Geotechnical Investigation" included as Appendix B to this document. Subsurface conditions may differ in some locations from those encountered during the site exploration, and will require additional analyses. 7. Additionally, the "Geotechnical Investigation' contains additional mitigation measures relative to: Removal Depths, Excavatability, Subdrains, Expansion Potential, Transition Lots, Permanent Cut Slopes, Permanent Fill Slopes, Fill-Over-Cut Slopes, Stabilization Fills, Oversize Material, Temporary Sloped Excavations, Utility Trench Backfill, Shrinkage and Subsidence, Site Drainage, Slope Protection and Maintenance, Asphalt Pavements, Residential Foundations, Retaining Walls, Slabs-on-Grade, and Soil Corrosivity. d. Level of Significance After 1V%itigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to slopes and erosion has been reduced to an insignificant level. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-27 O 3. WIIVID ER®SY®1V ANYD RLOWSA.NID a. E~sting Conditions The project is not located within the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Area designated within the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Although the project site lies outside the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Areas designated by the County of Riverside, construction activities (primarily site prepazation and grading) will generate fugitive dust. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month grading cycle completing 25% of the grading, and a 5 year grading duration, results in an average of .05 tons (109 pounds) per day of particulate emissions released for grading the project site. This is a small amount compared to the 146 tons per day of particulates currently released in Riverside County; however, it comes close to exceeding the threshold of significance of 150 pounds per day established by the SCAQMD. However, O this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources which are more harmful to health. Dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. In some cases grading may be near existing development. Caze should be taken to minimize the generation of dust. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Comprehensive General Plan indicates that when the project area is subject to conditions which indicate that wind erosion or blowsand may result from or during development, submission of a wind erosion control plan or request for a waiver is required with the development proposal prior to issuance of a grading permit. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-28 c. 1Vgitigation Rdeasures O 1. The quality of particulate matter and other pollutants emitted during the grading and construction phase of the proposed project may be reduced through watering graded surfaces and planting ground cover as dust palliatives, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. d. Level of Significance After 1V3itigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to wind erosion and blowsand has been reduced to an insignificant level. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1lE.LR. NO. 348 V-29 4. F'Y.®OIDYIVG. O The following discussion summarizes information contained in the "Preliminary Hydrology and Storm Drain Facilities Analysis for Campos Verdes" (May 1990) prepared by NBS/Lowry, Incorporated. This study is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix H. Also included in Appendix H is the "Drainage Study for Rancho California Commerce Center General Plan Amendment" dated April 1989 by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. This study is referred to by the NBS/Lowry Analysis. a. E~sting Conditions The majority of the project area is located within the Santa Gertrudis Valley, to the north of the confluence of the Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. As shown on Figure V-4, Existing Hydrology, an existing 100-year floodplain occupies the southern portion of the project site in the vicinity of an "un-named dry wash" which traverses the site. This wash discharges through an existing 10' x 5' RCB under Margarita Road. The total area tributary to the basin outlet at Margarita Road is approximately 1,650 acres. Off-site to the southwest, the un-named dry wash discharges under Ynez Road through an existing double 10' X 5' Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) under Ynez Road, located approximately 1,200 feet north of Solana Way. The RCB is presently able to convey the estimated existing 1250 cfs but any additional development upstream even without the Campos Verdes project will exceed the RCB capacity. O While the majority of the site is tributary to the un-named dry wash, portions of the Campos Verdes site drains toward the empty lot of the proposed Temecula Regional Center, Specific Plan No. 263. The runoff travels via overland flow to the existing double 7' X 5' RCB at Palm Plaza. A small portion of runoff' generated on the west slope of the ridge adjacent to Winchester Road currently drains to an existing 24 inch CMP culvert under Winchester Road. It is then conveyed through a cut channel to Santa Gertrudis Creek. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District and Water Conservation Agency. The project site is located within the Temecula Valley Area of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, and there are drainage fees of $1,970 per acre associated with developments within the site. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan would result in short-term and long-term hydrologic impacts. The development and construction phase of the proposed project would potentially create short-term downstream impacts related to erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils during project grading. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-30 O Z O J 0 O W W J O > O o ~ yw i ~ w ~ ~ c O c °1 ~ ~ ~Q U Q Z m ~ O.. ,~-~ y w~ O 8~ `~ ~ y aac ~ mid z ~~~ ~ ~` v °~- ~ g U ? ~e ~~~ ~7 ~/~~: ~ "5 ~b 'a ~<_ n <~ ~; [~. a5 ~S L1o D ¢A .rte W CC ILJ7 ~ ~ LL ~ } C 3 O J m Z W 0 N V IAvI n/` G h E s F 4'/ J o s ® H /~ y I \ a ~~-JI a O e ~. h N s ` U Ci X The development phase of the project will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces on-site that will increase the existing 100 year storm runoff to approximately 1567 cfs at Margarita Road. The Developed on-site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be adequately conveyed by the proposed drainage system, as shown on Figure III-5, O Drainage Plan. The proposed drainage system incorporates an approximately 13.5-acre pazk/detention basin along the southern project boundary (Planning Area 1) in order to reduce the flow rate experienced by the Ynez Road double box to 1,250 cfs. As shown on Figure 1V-27, Campos Verdes Pazk Site, soccer and football fields aze proposed in the floodplain area, which includes armor-flex, spillway area and rip-rap. This portion of the park will serve as a detention basin. Along General Kearny Road, tot lots, pazking lots, restrooms, etc. aze proposed. All drainage areas beyond the proposed basin that were tributary to the double 10' x 5' RCB at Ynez Road were subtracted from the total runoff flow. The result was an allowable discharge from the detention basin of 1,055 cfs. A depth-diachazge curve and adepth-storage curve were established based on a preliminary RCB main storm drain design and aze included in the "Preliminary Hydrology and Storm Drain Facilities Analysis for Campos Verdes" (May 1990) prepared by NBS/Lowry, Incorporated which is included as Technical Appendix H. According to the project engineer, the proposed detention basin will be designed to convey the 5 year storm directly through the proposed park/retention basin site allowing full use of the pazk azeas. During storms greater than the 5 year event stormwater retention will impact the proposed on-site recreational park area. The recreational park O area will be inundated a maximum of two days during a 100-year storm. The retention of the storms greater than the 5 year event will in part percolate into the pazk site ground which will enhance ground water recharge. This responds to the California Department of Resource recommendations which state, "Preserve existing natural drainage azeas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new development which aids ground water recharge", and "To aid in ground water rechazge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge azeas as open space:' Drainage facilities from the project site ultimately discharge downstream into the Murrieta Creek and without the proposed Campos Verdes retention basin would increase the existing 100 year storm of 1250 cfs to approximately 1890 cfs. This increased flow rate would contribute to cumulative increased flow rates downstream and the potential for flooding in azeas with undersized facilities. The cumulative drainage impacts in the Rancho California area are currently being addressed by RCFC & WCD's design studies for improvement of the Murrieta Creek Channel. Design studies for the improvement of Murrieta Creek are currently underway. General Plan Relationship The site is identified on the County Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains - Area Drainage Plan Map as being within the Dam Inundation Area of Skinner Dam. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-32 It is not shown as lying within the 100-year floodplain of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Because the site is within the Dam Inundation Area fora 100-year event for Skinner Dam, current requirements dictate that the project be reviewed for siting constraints and that an emergency evacuation route be in place prior to development. As discussed in Section V.C.1, Seismic Safety, all fmal subdivision maps will indicate that the O proposed project lies in a potential inundation zone. Prospective homebuyers within affected areas shall receive written notice of the potential of dam inundation and respective evacuation routes as part of Department of Real Estate disclosure requirements. Potential dam failure at Skinner Dam as a result of a catastrophic earthquake is considered a significant adverse impact. c. Mitigation Measures 1. All drainage facilities for this project shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula. Runoff will be conveyed through the Campos Verdes site by a system of parking lots, streets, catch basins, pipe culverts and channels. An 8' x 5' RCB is proposed connecting the proposed detention basin with the existing RCB at Margarita Road. The project also would require extending the existing 10' x 5' RCB under Margarita Road off-site through the proposed Temecula Regional Center to the double box existing under Ynez Road. 2. All of the storm drain outlets shall be designed with energy dissipation/transition structures to mitigate higher pipe outlet velocities. 3. The project developer shall pay drainage fees in accordance with the Murrieta Creek Drainage Plan. O 4. Erosion control measures shall be implemented during construction in order to prevent exposed soils from erosion during periods of heavy rainfall. Soil on graded slopes shall be strengthened by planting to reduce the potential of erosion. During the interim period before the ground cover takes hold straw, wood chips and plastic (visqueen) can be used as stabilizing agents. The proposed project will conform to all NPDES requirements as set forth by the City and County Flood Control District. 5. The proposed park/detention basin will be constructed in Phase I by the project developer. It is anticipated that maintenance of this facility will be the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, or the Homeowners Association. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation In spite of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to flooding (i.e. inundation due to the potential failure of Skinner Dam) is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-33 O b. 1V®ISE The following discussion is based on the "Noise Assessment for the Campos Verdes Project, County of Riverside" (revised June 5, 1991) prepared by Mestre Greve Associates. This report is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix G to this EIR. a. E~sting Conditions Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise, These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 DBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. The day-night or Ldn scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA;' O "60 dBA CNEL," or simply "60 CNEL". The criteria used to assess the acceptability of community noise levels varies with the municipality. The County of Riverside uses 65 CNEL as the critical criterion for assessing the compatibility of residential land uses with noise sources. The recently adopted Southwest Area Community Plan further states: When residential development abuts ground-based noise generators, such as highways and commercial/manufacturing activities, sound absorbing _, walls, berms, setbacks or other appropriate measures to limit exterior noise levels to not greater than 60 decibels shall be required. In addition, for multi-family residential projects, the California Noise Insulation Standard (California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) requires that the indoor noise levels in multi-family residential development do not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB. The County of Riverside indoor noise standards are consistent with the State standards. The County of Riverside requires that both single family and multi-family development achieve an indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. Other interior standards for industrial and commercial uses as follows: private offices, church sanctuaries, colleges, pre-schools, schools, board rooms, conference rooms, etc. require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL or less. General offices, reception areas and O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-34 clerical areas require a maximum noise level of 50 CNEL. Bank lobbies, retail stores and O restaurants and typing pools require an interior noise level of 55 CNEL. Manufacturing areas, kitchens and wazehousing areas aze required to have interior noise levels of 65 CNEL or less. Existing traffic volumes and estimated speeds were used with the FHWA Model to estimate existing noise levels in terms of CNEL. Traffic volumes were obtained from the Campos Verdes Traffic Study prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (May, 1991). Standard traffic mix distributions were used for the arterial roadways and are based on traffic data obtained at sample intersections located throughout Riverside County. The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are given in Table III, Existing Noise Levels. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table III do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The data in Table III indicates that a major noise corridor exists along Interstate 15. Noise levels directly adjacent to Interstate 15 exceed 70 CNEL. Other roadways in the project vicinity have low levels of traffic and correspondingly low levels of noise. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-35 TABLE III EXISTING NOISE LEVELS O Roadwav Distance to CNEL Contour'From Centerline of Roadwav (Feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL O O I-15 Winchester -Date Street South of Winchester DIAZ ROAD South of Winchester JEFFERSON AVENUE N. of Date Street Cherry Street -Santa Gertrudis Santa Gertrudis -Winchester South of Winchester YNEZ North of Winchester Winchester Road -Solana Way South of Solana Way MARGARITA ROAD South of Solana Way NICHOLAS ROAD South of Winchester MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD North of Winchester WINCHESTER ROAD Diaz Road -Jefferson Ave. Jefferson Ave. - I-15 I-15 -Ynez Ynez -Margarita Road Nicolas Road - Murrieta Hot Springs East of Murrieta SOLANA WAY Ynez Road -Mazgazita Road Mazgazita Road -East RW -Contour falls on roadway. 169 364 784 161 346 746 RW 53 115 RW 59 128 RW 59 127 RW 72 156 RW 95 205 RW RW 106 RW 102 221 RW 76 164 RW RW 82 RW RW 74 RW RW 84 RW 73 157 55 119 257 56 121 260 RW 79 171 RW 73 156 RW 55 118 RW 55 119 RW RW 63 V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-36 lb. Project IImpacts/QAeneral Plan Relationship O Short Term Impacts Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Grading activities typically represent one of the highest potential for noise impacts, however, most of the grading should occur away from existing residential land urea. However in some areas grading will be occurring adjacent to newly developed areas. For these situations, the most effective method of controlling construction noise is through local control of construction hours. Noise levels for equipment which might be used for the excavation and construction of the proposed project range from approximately 65 to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The noise levels decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance. Therefore, at 100 feet the noise levels will be about 6 dBA less. Intervening structures or topography will act as a noise barrier and reduce noise levels further. Long Term Impacts The proposed development of Campos Verdes will generate traffic, and as a result will alter projected noise levels in the surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the change O in roadway noise along these streets was determined. Due to future development which has already been approved there will be an increase in traffic in surrounding areas with or without the proposed project. The change in noise was calculated for these roads and is shown below in Table IV. Column 1 shows the change in the future noise levels over existing noise levels. The future noise levels include the sum of noise levels generated from existing traffic and noise levels generated from traffic due to cumulative development in the surrounding area including the Campos Verdes project. Column 2 shows the change in future noise levels over future noise levels due specifically to the proposed project. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-37 O TABLE IV TRAFFIC CNEL NOISE LEVELS Roadway I-15 Winchester -Date Street S. of Winchester DIAZ ROAD S. of Date St. JEFFERSON AVENUE N. of Date St. Date St. -Cherry St. Cherry St. -Santa Gertrudis Santa Gertrudis -Winchester Winchester -Apricot Apricot Ave. -South O YNEZ ROAD County Ctr. St. -Winchester Rd. Winchester Rd. South N. of Apricot Ave. N. of Solana Way S. of Solana Way MARGARITA ROAD A St. to B St. B St. to Winchester S. of Solana Way NICOLAS ROAD Winchester - Roripaugh Rd. S. of Wincheter Future Noise Increase Due to Project and Future Noise Increase Cumulative Development Solely Due to Proiect MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD N. of Date Street Date St. -Winchester 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.6 0.9 0.2 5.7 2.5 1.4 2.9 4.2 11.0 12.8 7.1 4.4 3.4 4.3 6.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.9 3.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-38 TABLE IV (Continued) O TRAFFIC CNEL NOISE LEVELS Future Noise Increase Due to Project and Future Noise Increase Roadwav Cumulative Develoament Solely Due to Proiect WINCHESTER ROAD Diaz Road -West 2.4 0.1 W. of Jefferson Ave. 0.7 0.1 Jefferson Ave. - I-15 1.0 0.2 I-15 -Ynez 3.1 0.5 Ynez -Mall Road 3.9 1.0 Mall Road -Regional Center Rd. 3.4 1.0 Regional Center Road -Margarita Rd. 3.9 0.9 Margarita Rd: Roripaugh Rd. 3.8 0.6 Roripaugh Rd. -Nichols Rd. 3.4 0.4 E. of Nicolas Rd. 3.8 0.5 West of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 3.7 0.5 East of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 4.9 0.3 SOLANA WAY Ynez Road -Margarita Road 4.2 1.0 O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-39 O According to the acoustical engineer, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA aze often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to local residents. The data in Table IV indicates that the noise levels will increase substantially over existing noise levels for sensitive land uses along some of the streets in the vicinity of the project. These increases aze primarily due to other projects planned in the area. The substantial increases are generally due to the relatively low amount of traffic currently in the area. A maximum change of 12.8 dB exists along Margarita Road (between B Street and Winchester Road) which will have a noise exposure just less than 70 CNEL at roadway right-of--way edge off-site. Areas along I-15, Diaz Road, Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, Mazgarita Road, Nicolas Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road and Solana Way will also experience noise increases greater than 3 dB. Those roadways that have noise increases greater than 3 dB and future noise levels greater than 65 CNEL are considered significant impacts if existing residential developments aze adjacent to the roadways. Such roadways include Margarita Road, Winchester Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicholas Road. For planned residential areas that are not yet developed roadway noise can be mitigated by the developer at the time of construction. The future noise levels are however likely to increase slowly over the yeazs rather than immediately. This problem is a regional problem due to the intense development O throughout this area. The future noise increase levels due solely to the project are identified in Column 2; and are all less than 3 dB except for Mazgazita Road between B Street and Winchester Road. However, this segment of Margarita Road is currently undeveloped, and therefore will not experience significant noise impacts due to the project. Therefore, the project will contribute slightly to the noise increase problem in the azea. However, as stated above, the impact of cumulative development upon this roadway segment results in an increase of 12.8 dB over the existing noise levels. This increase is considered a significant off-site noise impact. Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with the FHWA Traffic Noise Model to project future unmitigated noise levels for all of the roadways. The modeling results aze reported in Table V in the form of distances to the 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours. These projections do not take into account any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels. Table V presents the noise levels with the proposed project. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-40 TABLE V FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH THE PROJECT Roadwav I-15 Winchester -Date Street S. of Winchester DIAZ ROAD N. of Date St. S. of Date St. N. of Winchester S. of Winchester ADAMS AVENUE N. of Date Street S. of Date Street JEFFERSON AVENUE N. of Date St. Date St. -Cherry St. Cherry St. -Santa Gertrudis Santa Gertrudis -Winchester Winchester -Apricot Ave. Apricot Ave. -South MADISON AVENUE N. of Date St. YNEZ ROAD N. of Date Street Date Street - C St. C St. -County Ctr. St. County Ctr. St. -Winchester Rd. Winchester Rd. -South N. of Apricot Ave. N. of Solana Way S. of Solana Way Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadwav (Feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 302 650 1401 284 612 1318 RW 92 199 58 126 271 RW 104 224 RW 93 201 RW RW 86 RW 53 115 RW 96 207 RW 100 216 RW 104 223 58 126 271 51 109 235 RW 98 212 RW 93 200 RW 102 220 RW 105 227 RW 106 228 55 118 255 70 152 326 59 127 273 64 138 298 67 145 313 0 O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-41 0 O Roadwav N/S REGIONAL CTR. ROAD N. General Kearny S. General Kearny LINCOLN AVE. N. of Date St. "B" STREET N. of Margarita Rd. MARGARITA ROAD N. of Date Street Date Street - A Street A Street - B Street B Street -Winchester Rd. Winchester Rd. -Campos Verdes Lp. Campos Verdes Lp. -General Kearny General Kearny -Apricot Ave. Apricot Ave. -Solana Way S. of Solana Way NORTH OF "C" STREET Campos Verdes Loop - Roripaugh Rd. A STREET General Kearny Rd. - E Street E STREET A Street - Roripaugh Rd. RORIPAUGH ROAD S. of Winchester North of C St. - E St. W. E St. -Nicolas Road NICOLAS ROAD Winchester Rd. - Roripaugh Rd. S. of Roripaugh Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadwav (Feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL RW 80 173 RW 80 173 RW RW RW RW 51 110 RW 88 191 RW 83 179 RW 85 182 52 112 240 RW 93 201 RW 85 184 RW 97 208 52 112 241 52 112 242 RW RW 61 RW RW RW RW RW RW RW 44 95 RW 44 95 RW 44 95 RW 68 146 RW 58 126 O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-42 Roadwav MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD N. of Date St. Date St. -Winchester S. of Winchester DATE STREET W. of Adams Ave. Adams Avenue -Jefferson Ave. Jefferson Ave. -Madison Ave. Madison Ave. - I-15 I-15 -Business Pazk St. Business Pazk St. -Jackson Jackson -Lincoln Ave. Lincoln Ave. -East W. of Margarita Rd. Margarita Rd. -East W. of Murrieta Rd. CHERRY STREET Adams Ave. -Jefferson Ave. C STREET Jackson Avenue -Equity Drive A STREET W. of Margarita COUNTY CENTER DRIVE Ynez -West WINCHESTER ROAD Diaz Road -West W. of Jefferson Ave. Jefferson Ave. - I-15 I-15 -Ynez Ynez -Mall Road Mall Road -Regional Ctr. Rd. Regional Ctr. Rd. -Margarita Road Margarita Rd. - Roripaugh Rd. Roripaugh Rd. -Nicolas Road Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadwav (Feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL RW 75 162 RW 103 221 RW 80 172 51 111 239 52 111 240 54 117 252 56 120 259 56 120 259 55 119 257 RW 91 196 RW 88 189 RW 88 191 RW 80 173 RW 60 129 RW 42 91 RW 66 141 RW RW RW RW RW 66 RW 105 227 RW 81 174 65 139 300 90 193 417 67 144 311 62 133 286 67 144 310 63 135 290 59 128 275 V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 0 O O V-43 0 O Roadwav Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadwav (Feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL E. of Nicolas Rd. 60 129 279 West of Mumeta Hot Springs 59 128 275 East of Murrieta Hot Springs 54 116 249 CAMPOS VERDES LOOP ROAD Margarita Road - North C Street RW 55 119 North CStreet -General Kearny Rd. RW RW RW APRICOT AVE. W. of Jefferson Ave. RW 71 153 I-15 -Ynez RW 101 217 Ynez -Regional Center Drive RW 106 228 Regional Center Dr. - Mazgazita Rd. RW 75 161 GENERAL KEARNY ROAD Regional Ctr. Rd. -Margarita Rd. RW 86 185 Mazgazita Road - H Street RW 89 192 H St. -Campos Verdes Lp. RW 81 175 Campos Verdes Loop -East RW 88 189 SOLANA WAY Ynez Road -Margarita Road RW 105 226 Mazgazita Road -East RW RW 76 RW -Contour falls on roadway. On-Site Noise Impacts Future traffic noise levels impacting the project site were presented previously in Table V and indicated in Figure V-5, Projected Noise Contours which indicates the location of the 60 and 65 CNEL contours. The data indicate that limited portions of the project site proposed for residential use may experience traffic noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Specifically, residential lots along General Kearny and Margarita Road may experience noise levels over 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. These lots as well as those along Winchester Road and Campos Verdes Loop will also experience noise levels greater than 60 CNEL (in accordance with SWAP standards) without some form of mitigation. Measures will be necessary to ensure that residential azeas along these roadways will experience outdoor noise levels less than 60 O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-44 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. The usual form of mitigation is O through the construction of sound walla and sound insulation for the buildings. The residential land uses proposed along Margarita Road and General Kearny Road will experience noise levels less than 70 CNEL. According to the California Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines (Exhibit 3) residential land uses inside the 70 CNEL zone are "conditionally acceptable", new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Figure V-5 indicates that the residential area along Winchester Road will fall outside the 65 CNEL contour due to the set back distance of the top of slope. Along Campos Verdes Loop, proposed residential areas will also experience traffic noise less than 65 CNEL. According to the California Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines residential land uses inside the 65 CNEL zone aze "conditionally acceptable", new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. However, proposed residential uses along Winchester Road and Campos Verdes Loop could exgerience exterior noise levels exceeding 60 CNEL which exceeds outdoor noise standards of the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) unless proposed mitigation measures are implemented (see Proposed Mitigation Measure No. 2). O The proposed commercial/office land uses to be developed adjacent to Mazgazita Road, Winchester Road, General Kearny Road and Campos Verdes Loop will experience noise levels less than 70 CNEL. According to the California Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines commercial retail and office land uses inside the 70 CNEL zone are "conditionally acceptable", new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. The proposed pazk land use along General Kearny Road will experience maximum noise levels just greater than 65 CNEL. As indicated in Table V, the 65 CNEL contour along General Kearny Road (between Mazgazita Road and the Campos Verdes Loop) extends 81 to 88 feet from the roadway centerline. Given the ultimate right-of--way width of 88 feet for this roadway, the 65 CNEL extends 37 to 44 feet into the proposed park unless additional mitigation measures aze incorporated into the project design (see Proposed Mitigation Measure No. 2). According to the California Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines park land uses just outside the 65 CNEL zone are "normally acceptable" based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-45 O O O J z U zW oW W J C W ~ O ~z c c 0 0 0 0 U U W W J S ~ ' ~ c, ~~~ ~ ~ , w7~ W ~~~. oa. ~~e. ` ~ ,. '~~.~~ .. ~ ~, i U 1 O F U C I y J / ' I KL/ ~ ~~~'i / ~ ~~~~0 s ~~~~ ~~~~q~P~ ~ijuunnaP.~~~;r 'gy'p +l'p'i~H~ti~n~Y ~p~~ii~~ er~;. ~~ ~ i c',{ ~ •! ~.~ ~ ' . <, ~ ~ $ j ~. F ,-~a ~\ $'t ~e 1 ~ `aG .t 6 ,~~0~ i ._"L.S.r~ ' . `xtt~ yS' ~i o ~ s„ U ~_~ ~ BZ 5G ~_ ~, A i~ 3S a z~ _= fL e` ~ ~_ ~~ ~~ 0 Q~ a ~v .~ W LL 7 W H Q U ~ O N Q W W C W H N cW C W U oc O SIC/ A \ T N q ` I n ~1~/ U 3 E I~. ~ N N ~ 1~ ~. ~/ ® ~. . ~ J- ~ YP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'' Q ' ~~4~U~ / O ~ i ~ h n N Ci A U Y ~~ O While the proposed project represents an incremental contribution to this ultimate condition, cumulative noise increases are largely a result of increased traffic originating outside the project boundaries. These regional (or cumulative) noise impacts are considered a significant impact to off-site areas surrounding these roadways and will require a Statement of Overriding Conditions. General Plan 4ielationship The Campos Verdes project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The project site is not shown as noise impacted per County of Riverside Airport Noise Impact Area Map. However, the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Comprehensive General Plan includes the following Noise Land Use Standards. Those which are relative to the proposal are listed below: O 1. The following uses shall be considered noise sensitive and shall be discouraged in areas in excess of 65 CNEL (dBA): Single and multiple family residential, group homes, hospitals, schools and other learning institutions, and park and open space lands where quiet is a basis of use. 2. Proposed noise sensitive projects within noise impacted areas shall be required to have acoustical studies prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and may be required to provide mitigation from existing noise. 3. Proposed projects which are noise producers shall be required to have an acoustical engineer prepare a noise analysis including recommendations for design mitigation, if the project is to be located within close proximity to a noise sensitive land use or land zoned for noise sensitive land uses. In accordance with the land use standards of the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element and due to potential for on-site areas which contain noise sensitive uses adjacent to roadways to possess noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL, a Noise Assessment has been prepared. The Noise Assessment for the project, which proposes "Mitigation Measures" (as discussed below) is included as Appendix G to this EIR. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-47 a Mitigation Measures The following measures will adequately mitigate short-term and on-site noise impacts O but will not reduce cumulative off-site noise impacts to a level of insignificance. 1. Construction adjacent to existing residential development should be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Construction should not be allowed on weekends or federal holidays. 2. Mitigation measures aze needed to reduce noise levels in outdoor and indoor residential azeas exposed to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL. Specifically, residential lots along General Kearny, Winchester Road, Campos Verdes Loop and Margarita Road may experience noise levels over 60 CNEL without some form of mitigation. These roadways will require further, more detailed noise analysis when site plans and architectural plans become available and when grading plans aze developed. Noise barrier heights were calculated for sample locations along the above named streets. In most areas the barrier will have to reduce the noise level by approximately 1 to 6 dBA. The noise barrier heights range from 3 to 6 feet. In no instances should the barrier have to exceed 7 feet. The noise barrier heights projected may be reduced considerably through site design, such as setbacks from the roadways, grade separations, and exterior living area orientation. The barriers could be a berm, wall or a combination berm and wall. Walls should not contain holes or gaps, and should be constructed of slumpatone or other masonry material. Final noise barrier heights shall be determined through acoustical studies which will be submitted prior to approval of subsequent applications. 3. No second story balconies will face the roadway for units located inside the 60 O CNEL impact zone. Second story balconies will not overlook major roadways due to potential noise impacts. 4. The project applicant shall participate on a pro-rata basis in any City program in place at the time of tract map approval which mitigates off-site highway noise impacts due to this and other proposed development in the area. Exhibit 5 of the Noise Assessment contained in Appendix G of this document, presents a standard condition utilized by the County of Orange. The noise assessment recommends that a similar condition be attached to this project to insure that the project meets the indoor and outdoor noise standards for the City of Temecula. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation In spite of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to regional (or cumulative) noise levels upon off-site azeas is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPE IFI PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-48 O 6. CY.Y1!'lATE Al+)ID AYR ~YJAY.YTY a. E~sting Conditions Climate The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which encompasses about 8,630 squaze miles in Southern California. The climate of the basin is classified as Mediterranean, characterized by a pattern of cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Typical dry summers are caused by a seau-permanent high pressure cell located over the eastern Pacific Ocean. This system generally blocks storms from moving into the basin. The climate in the project vicinity typifies that of the entire basin. Temperatures recorded in the Rancho California Area range from 20 to 109 degrees fahrenheit, with an annual average temperature of 64 degrees fahrenheit for 1978. Approximately 90% of the precipitation in the area occurs between November and March, when the high pressure system in the eastern Pacific weakens, allowing storms, to move through the area (mostly from the northern Pacific). The average amount of annual rainfall in the Rancho California Area is 12 inches. Based upon measurements taken at Perris Valley Airport, located approximately 16 O miles northwest of the project site and data compiled at March Air Force Base, located 24 miles to the northwest of the project site, the estimated speed of prevailing southwesterly winds in the Rancho California area is 6 knots. However, wind speed and direction aze typically unstable, due to occasional northerly gusts. Air Quality The project site lies within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which maintains monitoring stations throughout the County. The monitoring station neazest the site with published data available is Perris Air Quality Monitoring Station. Only quantities of oxidant (ozone) are measured at that facility. ~At present, oxidant is the most serious problem in the project azea. Oxidant is formed by a multi-step photochemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons. Extended periods of intense sunlight, which is characteristic of the project azea, contribute to the high oxidant levels. Total suspended particulates (TSP) also continue to be a major problem in the South Coast Air Basin. Cazbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide aze not monitored at the Perris station. Levels of these pollutants are attributable primarily to automobile traffic, and usually do not reach high levels except near major congested roadways. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN N . 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-49 State and federal standazda for lead and sulfur oxides were not exceeded at the station. O It should be noted that the standards for these pollutants are exceeded in other parts of the air basin, but were not exceeded for the Perris station. Provided below is a summary of air quality trends for the previous four years at the Perris Station: TABLE VI AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE PERRIS AMBIENT AIR MONI TORING STATION California National Max. Days State ~.. Pollutant Standazd Standard Yeaz Level Std.Exceeded . Oxidant 0.10 ppm 0.12 ppm 1986 0.22 133 for 1 hour for 1 hour 1987 0.20 136 1988 0.23 137 1989 0.21 147 Percent AGM Std. Exceeded Particulates PM,o. 50 ug/m3 260 ug/m3 1986 215 O 18.8% for 24 hr for 24 hr 1987 187 33.3% 1988 164 63.3% 1989 187 66.1% * PM,o refers to f'me articles with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Air quality impacts aze usually divided into short term and long term. Short term impacts aze usually the result of construction or grading operations. Long term impacts are associated with the build-out condition. Short Term Impacts Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-50 O Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month grading cycle completing 25% of the grading, and a 5 yeaz grading duration, results in an average of .05 tons per day of pazticulate emissions released for grading the project site in one grading phase. Additionally, this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources which aze more harmful to health. Dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. In some cases grading may be neaz existing development. Care should be taken to minimize the generation of dust. Common practice for minimizing dust generation is watering prior to and during grading. Typical emission rates for a diesel powered scraper are provided in Table VII, and were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. Heavy-duty equipment emissions are difficult to quantify because of day to day variability in construction activities and equipment used. Typical emission rates for a diesel powered scraper aze provided in Table VII, and were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. A diesel powered scraper is the most common equipment used for grading operations. For this type of project 2 pieces of heavy equipment may be O expected to operate at one time. If all of the equipment operated for 8 hours per day the following emission factors would result in the emissions generated as noted in the table below; 5.4 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 23 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 2.35 pounds per day of hydrocarbons, 1.7 pounds per day of sulfur oxides, and approximately 1.5 pounds per day of particulates. These aze considered short-term impacts which do not reach significant impact thresholds established by SCAQMD. TABLE VII EMISSION RATES FOR GRADING SCRAPER - Emission Rate •Pollutant (¢rams/hour) (Hounds/dav)* Cazbon Monoxide 660 .14 Nitrogen 2820 .62 Hydrocarbons 284 .06 Sulfur Oxides 210 .05 Particulates 184 .04 * assumes 454 grams/pound and aten-hour work day O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-51 Another short term impact will be from the exportation of dirt from Campos Verdes O project site to Temecula Regional Center project site during grading. A total of 1.6 million cubic yards of dirt will be exported during a 6 month grading cycle (26 weeks assuming a 5 day work week). A total of 160,000 truck trips with a carrying capacity of 20 cubic yazds per truck and a 0.6 mile distance per trip is assumed to move the 2.2 million cubic yazds of dirt during the 6 month grading cycle. The resultant emissions aze listed in Table VIII below, Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emissions for Export of Dirt. It should be noted that estimate of amount of fill exported may vary significantly as final grading plans are developed. These emissions are not considered significant due to the fact that they do not reach significant impact thresholds established by SCAQMD. TABLE VIII HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCK EMISSIONS _ FOR EXPORT OF DIRT Resultant Emissions Pollutant lbs. da tons da ROG 6.03 lbs. .003 tons CO 17.22 lbs. .009 tons NOx 35.38 lbs. .018 tons pM 6.79 lbs. .003 tons O SOx 6.59 lbs. .003 tons NOTE: These emissions are based on emission factors in Appendix L, Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emissions Factors, of SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook for Preparing Environmental Impact Reports (April, 1987). Long Term Impacts The main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the residential combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the commercial use of natural gas and electricity. Estimates of the vehiculaz emissions generated by the proposed project were made using emission factors from the SCAQMD "Air Quality Handbook," (April 1987). The factors are based on the EMFAC6D Program. 1. Motor Vehicle Emissions -The greatest project-related air quality impact results from the 16,184 daily vehicle trips the project will generate at build-out. The amount V. GENERAL PLANJENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR» NO. 348 V-52 O of motor vehicle emissions associated with the proposed project is calculated based upon the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at various phases of development. The VMT is determined by multiplying the 16,184 average daily trips (ADT) generated by the development times the average trip length of 7.0 miles for an averaged total of 113,288 VMT. An average vehicle speed of 35 miles per hour was assumed for the projections. The emissions aze projected for the year 1994. The project's vehiculaz emissions are presented in Table Dt. TABLE D~ MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS DAILY EMISSIONS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT CO = 113,288 VMT X 6.17 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 1,539.61 lbs/day NOX = 113,288 VMT X 1.20 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 299.44 lbs/day SOX = 113,288 VMT X 0.24 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 59.89 lbs/day Part = 113,288 VMT X 0.287 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 71.62 lbs/day NMHC = 113,288 VMT X 0.490 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 122.27 lbs/day 2. Use of Natural Gas and Electricity - Residential units utilize an estimated 6,081 kwh/u nit/year. Utilizing this estimate, the 850 units proposed by the Campos Verdes O Specific Plan would utilize 5,168,850 kwh per year. Approximately 364,379 square feet of commercial;commercial/office use is proposed. A factor of 8.8 kwh per s.f. per yeaz is utilized, for a total of 3,206,385 kwh. Based upon the above information, the total annual electrical usage for the Campos Verdes Zone Change is projected at 8,375,385 kwh. See Power Plant Emissions (Table X) for emissions associated with this demand for electricity. Natural Gas -The primary use of natural gas by the project will be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning. Consumption for residential use is estimated by Southern California Gas Co. at 6,665 cubic feet/unit/month for single-family dwelling units and 4,105 cubic feet/unit/month for multi-family dwelling units. The 206 single-family dwelling units proposed by this project would require 1,372,990 cubic feet of natural gas per month and the 644 multi-family dwelling units proposed by this project would require 2,643,620 cubic feet of natural gas per month. Approximately 364,379 square feet of commercial;commercial/office use is proposed. A factor of 2.0 c.f. per s.f. per month is utilized for a total of 728,758 cubic feet per month. Based upon the above information, the average monthly consumption of natural gas for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan is projected to be 4,745,368 cubic feet. See Natural Gas Emissions (Table XI) for emissions associated with the projects consumption of natural gas. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-53 TABLE X POWER PLANT EMISSIONS° O CO = 8,375,385 kwh x .20 lbs/1,000 kwh = 1,675.07 lbs/yr NOx = 8,375,385 kwh x 1.15 lbs/1,000 kwh = 9,631.70 lbs/yr SOx = 8,375,385 kwh x .12 lba/1,000 kwh = 1,005.05 lbs/yr Part = 8,375,385 kwh x .04 lba/1,000 kwh = 335.02 lbs/yr ROG = 8,375,385 kwh x .O1 lbs/1,000 kwh = 83.75 lbslyr * Resulting from consumption of 8,375,385 kwh per year generated by a power plant,_.- asauming continued availability and use of natural gas in power plants, and average hydro yeaz. CO -Carbon Monoxide NOx -Nitrogen Oxides " SOx -Sulfur Dioxide -. Part -Particulates _~ ROG -Reactive Organic Gas TABLE XI NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS O CO = 4,745,368 c.f X 20 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. = 94.91 lbs/mo. NOx = 4,745,368 c.f X 1.15 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. = 5.46 lbs/mo. SOx = negligible Part = 4,745,368 c.f X .15 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. = 0.71 lbs.mo. NMHC = 4,745,368 c.f X 5.3 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. = 25.15 lbs/mo. Total long-term pollutant generation (i.e. motor vehicles, power plant emissions and natural gas emissions) is considered "significant" by the "Air Quality Handbook for Preparing EIR's", which suggests that "significant" impacts will occur when a project is capable of daily emissions of one or more of the pollutants listed below: Carbon Monoxide 550 lbs. or 0.28 tons Sulfur Dioxide 150 lbs. or 0.08 tons Nitrogen Oxides 100 lbs. or 0.05 tons Particulates 150 Ibs. or 0.08 tons Reactive Organic Gases 75 lbs. or 0.04 tons Lead 3 lbs. or 0.002 tons V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-54 O According to the above information, air quality impacts associated with the Campos Verdes proposed project are considered significant adverse impacts in the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates, and reactive organic gases will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Mitigation Measures aze recommended for the project which will reduce, but not eliminate the significance of the impact. The AQMP is designed to accommodate growth in the basin consistent with the SCAG- 82 Growth Forecasts. This growth forecast is based on the general plans adopted by the various municipalities at the time of the forecast development. If the proposed Specific Plan is determined to be consistent with the recently adopted Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, the project can then be considered consistent with the AQMP. Qaeneral Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the Mazch 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the azea within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning O practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. There aze two Land Use Standards in the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Comprehensive General Plan relative to air quality. They concern air quality impact mitigation and sensitive land uses. 1. Air Quality Impact Mitigation -Major development proposals which may create a significant new source of air pollutant emissions must contribute to the mitigation of adverse air quality impacts. Major projects may include large industrial, mining, residential, commercial or recreational projects. Air quality mitigation measures to ,reduce automobile or energy use include the following; o Bicycle facilities such as bike lanes, racks and lockers. o Transit facilities, such as benches, shelters and turnouts. o Pazk-n-Ride facilities. o Carpool preferential pazking programs. o Energy efficient buildings. o Solar access orientation of structures. o Solar heated and cooled structures and swimming pools. 2. Sensitive Land Uses -Sensitive land uses should not be located adjacent to sources of heavy air pollution, such as major roadways or heavy industrial land uses. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-55 It is intended that the project conform with the Air Quality Land Use Standards by O employing mitigation measures listed below. c. ldtitigation 1Ndeasures 1. The quality of particulate matter and other pollutants emitted during the grading and construction phase of the proposed project may be reduced through watering graded surfaces and planting ground cover as dust palliatives, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2. Because most of the project-related air pollution emissions are generated by automobiles, there is very limited potential for any effective mitigation on the part of: . any single developer. The project will integrate prior to final tract map recordation the:. following features into the project design: .. o Transit facilities, such as benches, shelters and turnouts; : _- o Energy efficient buildings; and __. , o Solar access orientation of structures. - 3. Additionally, the design of efficient and direct traffic flow patterns on the project site can help reduce the quantity of air pollutants generated by minimizing the places in the roadway system where automobiles would be idling unnecessarily. The project Traffic Study, included in the Technical Appendices, contains a number of design guidelines to be utilized in creating an efficient roadway system. d. Level of Significance After Rh[itigation In spite of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to air quality (i.e. generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates and reactive organic gases) is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. l/E.1.R» NO. 348 V-56 O 7. B5'ATER QUALYTY a. E~sting Conditions The California Porter-Cologne Water Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 required that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State. In order to accomplish this, the California State Water Quality Control Board divided the State into 16 planning basins. The project area is within the San Diego Basin and is governed by the California State Water Quality Boazd, San Diego Region. The project lies entirely within the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater area. This groundwater area, the largest in the entire San Diego Region, covers a surface area of about 60,000 acres. The aquifers are recharged by underflows from the Lancaster Basin to the east and by surface flows from Warm Springs, Murrieta, Santa Gertrudis and Temecula Creeks and by direct precipitation within the valley area. According to the Southwest Area Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (December 1988), the overall storage capacity of the Murrieta-Temecula Basin is estimated to be 1.2 million acre feet. There aze approximately 250 active wells within the azea, producing water for both domestic and irrigation uses. The wells are clustered principally within the Murrieta Valley azound the community of Murrieta. Other clusters of high- producing wells aze located in the Santa Gertrudis Valley and Pauba Valley. The quality O of water withdrawn from the basin ranges from 250 PPM TDS to 1,000 PPM TDS. Actively producing Rancho California Water District wells are present in the area. According to the Southwest Area Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, the Murrieta-Temecula basin is considered to be in an overdraft condition as evidenced by a long-term decline in water level. Much of the basin is overlain by a relatively impervious layer which restricts recharge of the underlying sediments. According to the "Geotechnical Investigation" included as Technical Appendix B, groundwater was encountered at depths of about 23 feet and 27 feet. Both of these borings were located in active drainage channels. Groundwater levels noted were within bedrocks of the Pauba Formation. Surface water conditions of the Campos Verdes project are discussed in Section V.C.4, Flooding. b. Project Impacts Construction of the Campos Verdes project will alter the composition of surface runoff by grading the site surfaces, by construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides, O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348' V-57 fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris. O This runoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream in the Murrieta Creek. Urban runoff is considered a "nonpoint" source. Unlike point source wastes, nonpoint sources cannot be quantified through flow measurement, sampling and analysis techniques. Recommended control of nonpoint source wastes is directed primarily toward agricultural activities, including control of irrigation, fertilizer application and spreading of agricultural wastes. In addition, the project will generate an average day sewage flow of .326 MGD, which will require treatment and ultimate disposal by EMWD. Aa discussed in Section V.D.2;:, Water and Sewer, EMWD's discharge capacity for treated effluent is 2 million gallon per..:. day and the District is now at that capacity. Although treatment plant capacity is adequate, the effluent discharged after treatment cannot be disposed of under existing permits within the water quality basin. Management of the project area's wastewater will be accomplished by EMWD, in accordance with the California State Water Quality Control Boazd, San Diego Region prior to project implementation (see Mitigation- Measure No. 2). As such, project impacts related to water quality aze not anticipated to be significant. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated O City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan" (the fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February, 1990) does not include the azea within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan contains the following Land Use Standard relative to water quality: 1. All development proposals will be reviewed for potential adverse effects on water quality and will be required to mitigate any significant impacts. The project is compatible with the Comprehensive General Plan Land Use Standard in that no significant impacts to water quality are anticipated. In addition, as discussed under "Mitigation", erosion and sedimentation will be controlled by proper grading practices. Only pesticides and herbicides typical of urban doses are expected. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. N .348 V-58 O c. P/iitigation ldleasures 1. In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control District, the project will employ erosion control devices during grading, such as temporary berms, culverts, sand-bagging or desilting basins. 2. The project will comply with the requirements of the California State Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. These requirements involve the maintenance of existing groundwater quality in terms of existing levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and the governing of discharge of reclaimed or treated water into existing streambeds or drainage courses. Any proposed discharge of effluent from the project site or the withdrawing of groundwater supplies from the existing aquifer would require a permit from this agency. Neither of these circumstances, however, are anticipated for the proposed project. d. Level of Significance After 1Vlitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to water quality has been reduced to an insignificant level. O O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPE IFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-59 g. ~'®~IIC SYJ)sSTA1VCES O The following discussion of potential impacts due to toxic substances is based upon a Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation prepared by Hydrotech Consultants, Inc. The conclusions found in the report are based upon record and document seazch, a review of historical serial photographs and a field reconnaissance. a. E~sting Conditions The subject property has been a site of prior agricultural activities, however, no hazazdous waste materials were noted on-site. For the purpose of regulating disposal practices, waste aze categorized by their potential hazards to health and water quality: o Group 1 Wastes: Toxic or hazardous substances; municipal saline fluids; incinerator ashes and chemical toilet wastes; industrial brines; operations fluids; ashes; mine tailings; chemical mixtures and rotary drilling muds; agricultural pesticides; discazded chemicals and other toxic wastes. Waste disposal facilities are classified by the type of wastes accepted: o Class I Facilities: All types of waste are accepted including hazardous wastes. O Complete protection of public health and wildlife must be provided. o Limited Class I Facilities: All types of waste are accepted with limitations on the type and amount of Group I hazardous wastes, due to greater potential for flooding. o Class II-1 Facilities: Group 2 and 3 wastes aze accepted and specific Group I wastes may be accepted. Measures for flood protection and water quality protection aze provided if necessary. Presently there are no active Class I and Class II-1 landfills operating in Riverside County. The Stringfellow site in Glen Avon, which closed in 1972, is currently being monitored for seepage of chemicals and awaits cleanup with Federal assistance. At a State level, the Department of Health Services (DHS), Toxic Substance Control Division, is responsible for the regulation and control of hazazdous materials, including hazardous wastes. At the local level, the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Branch, has the primary responsibility for hazardous waste and materials enforcement. Other supporting agencies, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Local Air Quality Management District, and the Fire Department, aze responsible for implementing and enforcing the provisions of the various hazazdous materials programs throughout the County. CalTrans' responsibilities V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. l/E.1.R. NO. 348 V-60 O include the containment, identification, cleanup, and disposal of hazardous substance spills located within highway right-of--ways. The California Highway Patrol responds to highway emergencies involving hazardous materials, inspects and regulates commercial vehicles which carry hazardous materials, and coordinates with other agencies for the enforcement of hazardous waste laws and regulations as they apply to transportation. There are about 1,200 facilities that generate hazardous waste within the jurisdictional review of the County Health Department. Approximately 25,000 tons of hazazdous waste are being generated in Riverside County each year. Most hazardous waste generated in the County is either shipped to off-site locations with a significant and growing portion disposed of out of state or managed on-site by the generator. b. Project Impacts The Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation indicates that the presence of hazardous material within a majority of the subject property is unlikely. However, due to the past agricultural use of the site, there remains the potential for near surface soil contamination due to residues from prior pesticide use. Additionally, located in the northwest area of the site is a fill area. While no hazardous materials were observed within the fill area, there remains an inherent uncertainty as to the subsurface fill contents. O Development of the site may include small quantity generators. Small quantity generators are businesses that produce less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month (13.2 tons per year). A large majority of the 1,200 hazardous waste generators under the County's jurisdiction are small quantity generators. Small quantity generators may include drycleaning businesses, photo and camera stores, establishments dealing with painting materials and solvents, and/or other facilities which could be allowed within the proposed commercial use. In these instances, there will be no outside storage of hazardous materials. Consequently, there will be no direct exposure of hazardous materials to the public, and no impacts to groundwater. Persons working in the small quantity generator facilities will be protected by OSHA standards and Health Department criteria. The exact businesses to be located within the proposed on-site commercial uses aze unknown at this time. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-61 Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following Land Use Standard -Toxic Substances of the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan is applicable to the project site: 1. Toxic Substances -All development proposals will be reviewed for potential adverse effects from exposure to toxic substances. Particulaz impacts which may occur include degradation to water and air quality, health problems, transportation, disposal, and storage problems. Required mitigation measures may include special studies, setbacks, alternative pesticide use, requirements for monitoring, and siting of structures. In accordance with the Land Use Standards for Toxic Substances, a "Preliminary Property Environmental Evaluation" has been prepared by Hydrotech Consultants. c. P/titigation 1Vleasures The Preliminary Property Environmental Evaluation indicated no evidence of the presence of hazazdous waste within the project boundaries. The following measures aze intended to eliminate potential toxic material-related impacts associated with the prior on-site agricultural activities, and existing fill azeas. 1. Due to the past agricultural use of the site, a subsequent sampling and chemical O analysis program shall be completed prior to issuance of grading permits to determine if near surface soils contain hazardous substances in excess of EPA limits. 2. During the removal of existing, undocumented fills observation by a qualified geologist shall occur. In the event that any hazazdoua materials aze found on-site qualified authorities shall be contacted immediately. 3. Appropriate County agencies or the City of Temecula shall review proposed commercial developments to determine potential for existence and use of toxic materials. d. Level of Significance After 1Vlitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to toxic substances has been reduced to an insignificant level. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-62 O 9. AG18%CULT[JIIZE a. E~stiag Conditions Information provided by the Riverside County Agricultural Department indicates that the primary crops grown on the 132.9 acre Campos Verdes project site are pasture crops. Surrounding property is growing primarily dryland grains and pasture crops. Dryland grains grown in the past include barley and oats. According to the Soil Survev. Western Riverside Area. California, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, the following soil associations are present on the project site and are shown on Figure V-6, Soils and Agriculture: TABLE XII SOIL ASSOCIATIONS ON-SITE Capability Unit Number of Man Symbol Mappine Unit Irrieated/Drvland Acres AtD2 Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, O 8-15% slopes, eroded IVe - 8 1.5 acres GyA Greenfield sandy loam, 0-2% slopes I - 1 37.5 acres HcC Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2-8% slopes IIe - 1 21.1 acres RnE3 Ramona and Buren loams, 5-25% slopes VIe - 8 29.2 acres RmE3 Ramona and Buren Sandy foams, 15-25% slopes, severely eroded VIe - 1 10.0 acres GtA Grangeville Fine, Sandy loam drained, o-2% slopes I - 1 33.6 acres Total 132.9 acres O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-63 ~/ s 0 ~ ~~ o o ~R g °p o ~g f° ~0 90 ~ c Zc Zc ran .. z~N ~ m m~ ~.. v`5 U~^ o~ o~ ¢`~ ~ ~'g 90 00 ~° ~° 00 yMi W(~`I Zm ON ON Z^ (9 d c9 d i ~ 4c 'A ~'h ¢ ~ W Q Q V W W zoao~ A ~~~ o ~ s m~E sp _~ ~:~ ~ 33 3 i'+ b m a: =S ~ ~~ 77 ~So a Q.v .d ~ W Q (~ LL W O /// '~ i l ''~ ~~~ ~~ / ~o V fr' ~i =_ ~ (~ o ,d / r v M ~~~ ,\ r ~_ .~~I ~l .. ~¢ ~ ~~ ~ ~~. I ~ , ~Q / ~ o ~ ~°~ ~ ~/ Ma ~ ` i ', aaemr_ ~~> ~ a `;t -= , °. ~ S U~ ;r v '; ~r ~ `\ o ~,\ ~~ ova ~ ~ a:t_ o r^ ~~~,~ ~.~ ~,/ ~ ~ ~U J W Q a W N ~ ~ ~ W Z U ~ ~~ ~3 ~ ~ N a ` U __a a E ~~ //~~ ~ J ® o H h i ~ °o w y n N Ci C Ci ~~ The Capability Classes are designated by Roman Numerals I-VIII. The numerals O indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical uses. As can be seen above, the site contains soils from Capability Classes I, II, N, and VI. Class I soils have few limitations that restrict their use. These soils are considered Prime. Class II soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. Class N soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. Class VI soils have very severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. The site is designated as "Local Important Farmland" on the Riverside County Agricultural Resources Map. Cost of Water The most significant factor affecting the agricultural use in the Rancho California area is the cost of water. Water for Western Riverside County agriculture is imported from Northern California and the Colorado River via the State Water Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct. There is limited groundwater available. In Riverside County, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) delivers water to two of its member agencies, Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts (EMWD and WMWD) who in turn sell water to local agencies and directly to consumers. MWD uses O an established priority delivery system for water supply, which gives domestic and industrial users the first priority, "non-interruptible" supply. Agriculture activities receive a second priority, and in the case of intense drought, will be denied water first. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court made a decision awarding water allotments that had formerly served much of the imported water needs to Southern California including Western Riverside County to the state of Arizona. Since then, the costs of purchasing imported water from EMWD has risen from the $13 per acre foot charged in 1964 to $32.75 per acre foot in 1974 to its present (1988) rate of $ 239.25 per acre-foot. This contrasts with the current water costs in the San Joaquin Valley which range from $60 to $100 per acre foot, and the Coachella and Imperial Valley areas where water costs are $12 per acre foot. As is evident, water costs in the western areas of Riverside County are as much as 20 times higher than other areas in Southern California. Reclaimed water for use in agricultural activities has been frequently suggested to reduce the costs and increase the availability of water. However, feasibility of using reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation is dependent upon the economics associated with design, plant operation, delivery system of treated water to farm areas and the necessity of holding ponds, or pumpback systems to prevent agricultural tail water from entering any surface water bodies. Reclaimed water is suitable for irrigation on seed and fodder crops, but it is not suitable for crops for human consumption. Reclaimed water O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-65 can be effectively used to maintain the irrigation needs of golf courses and park lands. O Presently, reclaimed water is being used in some areas of Riverside County for such non-essential farm activities as sod farming and ornamental plant nurseries. Rise in Production Costs Besides the increased water cost as previously discussed, other production costs associated with agricultural activities have had significant increases in the past decade. Energy costs incurred from agricultural production such as well pumping, tractor use, fertilizer costs, crop processing and transportation, etc. have greatly increased. The cost of available labor has increased as much as 40% in the same time frame. Transportation and processing coats have risen 25% to 40%. During the same time frame, market prices for most commodities have remained level or have declined. Alternative Crops/Climate The farming community has attempted to increase its agricultural viability by continuing to work with their various associations and the State of California Agricultural Department as well as with the research departments of the University of California Riverside and Davis Campuses. A number of new crops have been tried in Riverside County. Cold and occasional frost in the winter months, coupled with the hot, acid conditions in the summer along with the wind factors, has reduced the range of crops that can be successfully cultivated in western Riverside County. To combat the O previously discussed high cost of water, substitute methods of irrigating fields have been tried. However, drip-irrigation has proven unsuitable because of its ability to promote soil fungus. Market Competition In recent years, the expansion of farming activities in the Imperial Valley and Coachella Valley areas have driven farm prices below levels that can be met by production in western Riverside County. Even more recently, the expansion of farming activities in northern Mexican states, pazticulazly Baja California and Sonora, has brought on a new source of market competition. This is exacerbated by cheap labor, inexpensive land, and lower water costs. In some azeas of Riverside County, the cost of grain production was so high in 1987 that it could not compete in the marketplace and much of the acreage used for such production was plowed under. Surrounding Land Use Property to the immediate north of the project site across Highway 79, is proposed for development as the Winchester Meadows Zone Change. The site is currently growing dryland grains. Also, to the west of the project site, across Margarita Road, is the proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The site is currently growing pasture V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-66 O crops and dryland grains. Further north of the project site, across Santa Gertrudis Creek, is the Winchester Hills Specific Plan. The site is currently growing dryland grains. Although these plans have not been approved at the time of this writing, they indicate that long term agricultural use is not envisioned by the property owners. To the northeast of the project site is Roripaugh Specific Plan 164 currently being developed with industrial, commercial and residential land uses (see Section V.H.1, Cumulative Impact Analysis and Table XVI, Cumulative Projects for additional details concerning surrounding development). SWAP designations for the project area do not include any agricultural land uses. b. Project %mpacts/General Plan %telationsbip Implementation of the Campos Verdes Zone Change will remove an estimated 132.9 acres of pasture crops, contributing to the decline of such uses in Riverside County. It should be noted, however, that the project site is shown as an "Area Not Designated as Open Space" on the Open Space and Conservation Map of the Riverside County General Plan. If long-term agricultural use was considered appropriate, the site would have been designated "Agriculture" by the General Plan. Project implementation will result in urban development on "Local Important Farmland" per the County Agricultural Resources Map. In addition, development will occur on soils O that are classified as "Prime" (capability Classes I and II) per the Soil Survev. Western Riverside Area. According to the California Department of Conservation, the loss of any prime agricultural land is considered a significant environmental impact. Due to the relatively small acreage of agricultural use which will be impacted, the commitment of the project site to non-agricultural uses will not adversely affect the agricultural productivity of the area. However, construction of various projects in the area will continue and possibly accelerate the trend toward development of agricultural lands in Riverside County. Also, it should be noted that this impact was previously addressed in the "Draft EIR for Rancho Villages General Plan Amendment" (August 1980). That document addressed impacts associated with conversion of the existing agricultural uses to the urban uses proposed by the Rancho Villages Policy Plan and determined that because of the minor amount of Class I and II agricultural soils within the 4,000-acre Policy Plan area, project impacts are not significant. Surrounding Land Use Development of the property with urban uses could potentially hasten the conversion of other agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land value for development. However, much of the surrounding land is also being O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-67 proposed for development with urban uses in accordance with the recently approved O Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), including the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan located immediately west of the project site and the Roripaugh Specific Plan 164 currently under construction to the northeast. The Winchester Meadows Zone Change located north and west of the project site, is also proposed for development. Development of the Campos Verdes project with the uses proposed will eliminate potential agriculturaUurban land use conflicts with the adjacent Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Meadows and Roripaugh Specific Plan 164 projects. QAeaeral Plan IItelationslup The Countywide Agricultural Resources Map identifies portions of the site as containing "Local Important Farmland". According to the General Plan Land Use Standards, proposed nonagricultural land uses located in agricultural areas shown on the Countywide Agricultural Resources Map will be evaluated in light of the historic and existing agricultural uses of the land, public services serving the area, soil conditions, water usage and water distribution system, and economic factors. This evaluation should consider previous approval of the Rancho Villages Policy Plan, which approved urban uses on these "Farmlands". Due to the site's location at the intersection of Margarita Road and Winchester Road, agricultural use is not considered along-term use. No part of the property is designated "Agricultural" on the Open Space and Conservation Map of the Comprehensive General Plan. Based upon the easy availability of public services serving the area, the high cost of irrigation water, the limited distribution of the O prime soils on-site, and the economic factors associated with development pressure, project development can be considered consistent with the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the General Plan. c. 1Vlitigation 1Vleasures No mitigation measures are proposed for the discontinuance of pasture farming on-site and the loss of Prime Farmland. Therefore, the loss of Prime Farmland is considered an unavoidable adverse impact of project development and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. d. Level of Significance After 1Vlitigation In spite of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to agriculture (i.e. the loss of Prime Farmland as a result of project development) is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-68 10. ®P1E1V SPACE A]VdD C®NS]E]EtVATII®PI a. iE~sting Conditions O On-Site Land Use and Zoning Designations The project site is currently used for dryland fa*~*>ing, primarily for bazley. As can be seen on Figure V-7, Project Site and Surrounding Zoning, the northern portion of the site is zoned R-R (Rural Residential), while the southern portion is zoned A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture). The Open Space and Conservation Map of the Riverside County General Plan shows the site as "Area Not Designated as Open Space". The project. site is located within the boundaries of the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). The land use allocation map associated with the SWAP designates the Campos Verdes site for the following uses: 8 - 16 d.u./acre -Category 1; 2 - 5 d.u./acre -Category II; C-O (CommerciaUOffice), and C (Commercial) (see Figure V-8, Southwest Area Plan Designations.) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Designations Aa shown on Figure V-9, Surrounding Land Use, the Campos Verdes project site is located in an area which supports many approved and proposed Specific Plans. Immediately northeast of the project site is the approved Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan 184, located east of Route 79 in the vicinity of Nicolas Road. This 205-acre Specific Plan has been approved for construction of 710 dwelling units and 73 acres of Industrial use. The industrial element of the Specific Plan is located adjacent to Nicolas Road. O This azea has Specific Plan zoning and General Plan (SWAP) designations. Portions of this Specific Plan are presently under construction. To the west of the project site, across Margarita Road, is the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan 263, proposed by Bedford Development. (See Figure V-9, Surrounding Land Use.) This 201-acre Specific Plan proposes the construction of a high quality commercial center, offering retail, office, institutional and hotel uses. It will provide regional commercial uses to Temecula residents and is currently under City review. This area is currently zoned R-R and A-2-20 and has a SWAP designation of Commercial. To the east and southeast of the project site is a topographically varied area which supports numerous existing residential neighborhoods. (Homes along La Colima Road back up to the project boundary.) Those areas not presently developed with residential uses support residential zoning. These azeas have SWAP designations of "1/2-acre Minimum". That portion of the site which lies south of General Kearny Road is bordered by the existing residential neighborhood mentioned in the previous paragraph, and also by vacant land. As can be seen on Figure V-S, SWAP Designations, the vacant area south of the project site and east of the General Kearny Road curve is designated by SWAP for "Office Commercial" and for "8 - 16 d.u./acre" O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-69 O O O V Z Z O r~ z v! O c O~ /. ~~\ W W J w c ' l W N ~ U aF ~~ ~N ZU H~ a _ ~ LL ~ J E ~ c Z ~ (7 5 U w f o U Z ~ (7 ~ s is yZj~ U~ (~? oUiU a Q J ~ Z ~ ~ Q Zp ~ ~~ c~ FU uR Q>d >~~ 2v U U LL ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ UU U ~ ~ Q ~O X J: ~' ~~~ T.: ~~ `~~ ~ O ~ ~i \\ ..~ .~ _/ ~ ~'/" \ i /y- _~ ~ n.. _.., 2 N ~_ V/ w~)p~ N ~~ r //~ C~ ~ N e. -....;.L~ / ~ :- `,`,))N N ~: YN ~ ~ ~ •, Q ~ n .~ ~ a q ~ . ,,,"aaa.., a >. a . ~ ~ ' '::::; p i a / ¢~~y ,~ c /, > \ i ~ Y ` /~ ~ ;~ (.^ ~x. >< f / i „ ' / .. / ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~~ C 9 7 O ~ % U ~ ~a _° _~ „v ,a ra ~ ~5 zS c <i s° ~~q773"~ uo a c.v r ~~ J w n l5 o C7 LL ~ (ggq~`n ~4:/ y ~U q U a E ~ /~ `/ J o s ® ~ A h o a e a h n Ci C 4~Q O O z O a Z' 'Sw 0 W ' W J • ,~'-~ w s. ~ ~ N ~ .. ~ L 2 (. . i U i ` ~ ' 3 ' ~ ~ ., ~ i ~~ ~~i~ ~LL N s ~ ~ s o w ~ o ~~ _ ~_ LL ~ ~~ ~~ ° ~ W= ~~ Q O' ~= ~r W ~ ~ ~ o (~ vc.v F LL .d > ~; a U Y/ / o w ® ~ h I \ C ]-~1 Y O i~ A` V A ~" i ~ i ~ ~ i J h n N ,, ` Ci 1/~ JJ/1 O Ci C ~~ O O O ~ O 0 0 n r .n n Z aga< W ~ _ Oo ~~ Z ~g ~$aaa R $ R =' ~ ~ B y ~ N ~ N z U O ~ ~ O_ (9 - (9 E C ~ W €i U U ° U 3 3 ~ g ~ ~\ F ~' i ~i ~ ~ ~4 ~Y ..,oy 'h ~ A~> 71 C~ ~ t N.' __ ~ ~ ~~~'. / / ':7 ,~,~, C F ~ C 'e O ~ 8- U C _e ~ ~~ 5n C ~•a S`p A a3 g3 W 3£ ao 'o ~ as €~ 0 v rnv •r~ ® N m W LL lAI `n~ N ~1~% q U 9 E ~~ //~~ Y/ J o ® n y z° a h C a1~ Ci Ci ~/ C '/ _ The northern portion of the site borders Winchester Road for approximately 1,000 feet. Across Winchester Road from the project site is the proposed Winchester Meadows Business Park. Though applications have not yet been made for this project, the O Bedford Development Company is anticipating construction of Business Park and Retail Service/Commercial uses. This area is shown on the SWAP as "Restricted Light Industrial". Also proposed by Bedford Development in the project vicinity is the Winchester Hills Specific Plan No. 255. Located adjacent to and east of I-5, this project proposes a total of 1,948 dwelling unite, 120.1 acres of Business Park, 15.6 acres of Commercial use, 11.4 acres of Commercial-Office use and 25.8 acres of parka. (See Figure V-9, Surrounding Land Use.) In addition, the Costco Parcel Map has been submitted to the City which covers the 31 acres north of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the extension of Margarita Road. Commercial land uses are proposed for this area. Other approved Specific Plans in the area include Warm Springs Specific Plan (S.P. 220). The Warm Springs Specific Plan is generally located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of Winchester Road. (See Figure V-9.) The 475-acre project has been approved for construction of 1,886 dwelling units as well as approximately 17 acres of retail, office and neighborhood commercial uses. The 1,108-acre Winchester Properties Specific Plan 213 is located north of Roripaugh Estates and east of Winchester Road. It is approved for construction of 2,478 residential units and 268 acres of induatrial/commercial use. (See Figure V-9.) Other proposed and approved Specific Plans are discussed in Section V.H.1, Cumulative O Impacts. Eastern Municipal Water District is working with the City of Temecula and other local jurisdictions to design and develop a regional Multi-Purpose Corridor which will provide opportunities for water conservation, recreation and interagency use of easements along the Santa Gertrudis Creek, San Jacinto River, Salt Creek, Warm Springs Creek and other water courses within their service area. EMWD's Planning Task Force is currently in the process of developing draft "model" language for inclusion into each of the seven required elements of the general plans of local jurisdictions. The proposed on-site 13.5 acre park/detention basin should be considered as an opportunity to incorporate this regional concept at a local level. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship On-Site Land Use and Zoning Designations Project approval will ultimately result in the development of the land uses proposed by the Campos Verdes project as described in Section III, Specific Plan, and as depicted in Figure III-1, Campos Verdes Land Use Plan. These uses include 206 single-family lots within proposed Planning Areas 6 and 7; 644 multi-family or apartment units (17 d.u./acre) within Planning Areas 3 and 5; 13.5 acres of Commercial use within Planning O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-73 Area 4; 10.4 acres of Commercial/Office use within Planning Area 2, and a 13.5-acre pazk/detention basin site within Planning Area 1. Development of the site with the uses proposed will preclude future use of the site for dryland agriculture and will eliminate the open space and rural atmosphere currently O present on-site. Approximately 13.5 acres of open space will remain within the proposed pazk/detention basin. This constitutes continuation of the trend towards urban development in the area as embodied by the Warm Springs Specific Plan, the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan and other approved industrial, commercial and residential uses in the area. It should also be noted that conversion of the site from rural to urban uses was previously approved as part of the "Rancho Villages Policy Plan" approved by the County in August 1980. The Rancho Villages Policy Plan has since been superseded by the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). The proposed project generally conforms with the urban land use designations assigned to the site by SWAP, as discussed later under "General Plan Relationship". Project approval would also result in on-site zoning and General Plan designations of "Specific Plan". Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Designations As previously discussed, the approved Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan is located northeast of and adjacent to the Campos Verdes project. As can be seen on Figure III-1, Campos Verdes Land Use Plan, the project proposes apaztments and single-family residential use adjacent to the approved Specific Plan. These proposed uses should present no land use conflict with the residential uses approved on the Roripaugh Specific Plan. However, because single-family residential use will occur on the Roripaugh O Specific Plan site up-slope from the multi-family use proposed in Planning Area 5, a manufactured, landscaped slope is planned so that off-site single-family residence views are enhanced (see Figure IV-13, Multi-Family Residential at Off-Site Single-Family Residential Land Use). Landscape Development Zones (LDZ's) aze also proposed between proposed single-family residential uses and off-site single-family uses within Roripaugh Specific Plan, as shown on Figure IV-14. West of Mazgazita Road is the site of the proposed Temecula Regional Center. The Campos Verdes project proposes Commercial use, apartments, and Commercial/Office use on the east side of Margarita Road. No land use conflicts aze anticipated with the Retail/Hotel and Office uses proposed in this azea by the Temecula Regional Center. In order to retain the continuity of the existing Mazgarita Road streetscene; transition between residential and adjacent Temecula Regional Center uses; allow visibility, and highlight the distinctiveness of Campos Verdes, a minimum 32' LDZ is proposed, as shown on Figures IV-5 and IV-6. No land use conflicts are anticipated between the proposed pazk/detention basin site south of North General Kearny Road and the existing residential neighborhoods found in this area. Natural topography found off-site provides some separation between existing and proposed residential uses. Vacant land is also found off-site in this vicinity; V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R» NO. 348 V-74 however, it is designated by SWAP for 8 - 16 d.u./acre. The 10.4 acres of Commercial/Oflice use proposed in Planning Area 2 in the southwestern corner of the site are also adjacent to land which is presently vacant; however, this area is designated for "Office Commercial" use by SWAP which is compatible with the uses proposed by this project. Where O commercial or office uses join ofl=site land uses, a combination five foot m;nimum LDZ and community theme wall is planned along the property line (see Figure IV-16). The Medium Low density units (3.0 d.u./acre) proposed in the eastern portion of Campos Verdes (Planning Area 7) are compatible with existing residential areas off-site to the east (La Colima Road). These existing residential lots off-site are 1/2 acre *n;n;mum in size. Proposed residential lots in Planning Area 7 which are directly adjacent to the La Colima Road homes shall be 1/4 acre in size. Winchester Road will provide a separation between the apartment and commercial uses proposed by the Campos Verdes project and the proposed Winchester Meadows Business Park to the north. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes project site lies within the boundaries of the recently incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etcJ. The site also lies within the boundaries of the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). The proposed Campos Verdes project is generally consistent with the SWAP designations O assigned to the site; however, it should be noted that the Very High density of 17.0 du/ac c. Mitigation Measures proposed on 37.9 acres of the site exceeds the current SWAP designation of "8-16 du/ac". In addition, the "Medium" density use proposed in Planning Area 6 is at a density of 5.2 du/acre, which slightly exceeds the "2-5 du/ac" SWAP designation assigned to those areas. However, when averaged over the entire site on a gross acreage basis, the Campos Verdes project achieves an overall density which is consistent with SWAP. 1. The project design and Conceptual Landscape Plan are intended to mitigate impacts . to off-site adjacent land uses, as discussed under "Project Impacts" (see Figure III-9, Conceptual Landscape Plan). The loss of open space resulting from project development -..has previously been considered in the formulation of the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), as discussed in the "Existing Conditions" portion of this section. No further mitigation is proposed. The Specific Plan has been designed to minimize land use conflicts with existing and planned surrounding land uses through extensive use of Landscape Development Zones (LDZ). d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to open space and conservation has been reduced to an insignificant level. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-75 11. B5'%LIDLY)F'E/VEGE1'ATI®N The following discussion of wildlife and vegetation impacts is based upon the "Biological O Assessment for Campos Verdes" prepazed by S. Gregory Nelson (November 3, 1989), and on the "Site Check for Stephens Kangazoo Rat (Dipodomya stephensi - SKR)" prepazed by Stephen J. Montgomery (March 1988). These reports are included in their entirety as Appendix E to this EIR. a. Effisting Conditions One naturalized biotic community, introduced grassland, is represented on-site. The distribution of the various communities within the project area is shown on Figure V-10, Biological Resources. A complete listing of plant and wildlife species found within the various communities on-site are listed in the Biological Assessment, included as Appendix E to the EIR. Following are descriptions of the biotic communities -consisting of plant and wildlife species found on-site. As the term implies, biotic communities aze predictable assemblages of species which exist within the same physical habitat and have a very close and complex set of interrelationships. Introduced grassland is the only truly developed biotic community found on-site. No riparian vegetation occurs within the on- site drainage course traversing the project site. Introduced Grassland O Introduced grassland covers the entire site. This community derives its name from the predominance of introduced grass and herb species which have replaced native vegetation as the result of grazing and other past disturbances. It is a community which is widespread in Southern California today, particularly the western Riverside County area. Common plant species found in all introduced grassland are red-stemmed filaree Erodium cicutarium), foxtail chess Bromus rubens), soft chess Bromus mollis), wild oats Avena fatua), common barley Hordeum vuleaze), lupine Lu inus sp) and mustard Brassica geniculata). Other species included Croton Croton californicus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca ~randiflora), cudweed (Gnapthalium sp.), doveweed (Eremocazpus setieerus), and western ragweed (Ambrosia nsilostachya). In physical appearance, this vegetation forms a dense groundcover, growing to a height of approximately two to four feet (except when mowed or grazed). As a result of its annual lifeform, introduced grassland typically sprouts and grows rapidly following the onset of the winter rains with the most flowering taking place in the spring. Plants then die back and dry out over the summer and fall. Due to their altered conditions, large, open expanses of introduced grassland pasture and dryland fazmed areas generally support a limited abundance and diversity of wildlife and V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1(E.LR. NO. 348 V-76 O O O /T V O J CO 0 W W J o r G o ~. Zo 0 a U g~ ~ CC O n~ OC ~ i c ... ~~ C N rv ~ O ~ ~~ U Eee .5 ~a ra 3~ 2~ a .<-° ca :~ #o F a~ ~a 0 vrnv O_ •~ W C7 LL ~ /~ `AY~I /`n ~~c% a lA' `n h ~/ P U a E ///~~ F Y/ J o r ® N /~ h b a° N n H Ci O Ci ^\' dryland farmed azea. Several ground-nesting birds and burrowing mammals were O observed, including the western meadowlazk, mourning dove, beechy ground squirrel, audubon cottontail, and valley pocket gopher. Other species typical of grassland foraging habitat were observed as well. These included the red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, turkey vulture, brewers blackbird, and loggerhead shrike. A number of other species are expected including western fence lizazd, side-blotched lizard, gopher snake, horned lazk, vesper sparrow, killdeer, deer mouse, and coyote. The introduced grassland on-site includes a variety of "subcommunities'", or subtypes. The majority of the site is dryland farmed. This was appazent from the predominance of barley (Hordeum sp) which had been recently mowed and harvested. Generally areas being dryland fazmed were those where the topography consisted of gentle hillsides, ridgelines and narrow drainages. Such azeas are found over the northern half and along the southeastern portion of the site. In addition, there are areas in the central and southwestern portion of the site which appear to have once been used as pasture. In and azound these areas, there are also several foundations from raised buildings and abandoned ponds which do not appeaz to have held water for some time. Only one of these impoundments has riparian habitat associated with it in the form of several sapling willows (Salix sp). This vegetation is very limited and poorly developed, therefore, a riparian community is not considered to exist. O High Interest Species The site is located within the geographical range of one species designated as "endangered" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is the Stephen's kangaroo rat, (Dipodom~ stenhensi). Historically, the species was found throughout the San Jacinto Valley of Riverside County, with small populations also being found in southern San Bernardino Valley and north-western San Diego County. Recent research, however, indicates the current distribution of this species includes many disjunct isolated localities. This reduction is believed to be due to widespread agricultural and urban development within areas of preferred habitat. Based on information gathered to date, soil types and vegetation density appeaz to be the primary ecological factors limiting the distribution of this species (Bleich, 1977, 1973; Thomas, 1975). Generally, populations are found in soils having high percentages of sand and gravel in relatively flat or gently rolling areas and covered by open, grassy herblands where scattered shrubs occur. Based on field observations, the site is not believed to contain any habitat areas suitable for the Stephen's kangazoo rat. As described above, essentially the entire site is under dryland farming, which involves annual mowing and tilling. In addition a Stephen's kangaroo rat survey and trapping program was conducted over a portion of the project site (The Planning Center, 1988), including habitat areas similaz to those found over the O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-78 entire site. This survey and trapping program resulted in no Stephen's kangaroo rat captures, observed tracks, or other evidence indicating their presence. O The project site is also within the geographical range of the San Diego horned lizard and the orange-throated whiptail, both of which are listed as "Species of Special Concern" by California Department of Fish and Game. Although worth mentioning, these species are not expected to occur on-site due to its disturbed condition nor were they observed during on-site walkover surveys, according to the field biologist. The site also provides potential habitat for a group of birds included on the Audubon Society's early warning list, known as the "Blue List" (Tate et. al. 1982). These bird species are listed below: Marsh hawk Prairie falcon Turkey vulture Burrowing owl Snowy plover Barn owl Merlin Short-eared owl American kestrel Bewick's wren Ferruginous hawk Western bluebird Loggerhead shrike Grasshopper sparrow Vesper sparrow Savannah sparrow Blue listed species are not rare or endangered and the listing is advisory only. According to the Audubon Society, the list is an early warning list of species whose populations O indicate non-cyclical declines or range contractions and which are recommended for monitoring by wildlife agencies, conservation groups and individual researchers. No rare or endangered plant species are reported or expected from the project area (Smith et. al. 1980). Areas of Special Biological Importance As indicated by the preceding discussion, the site provides habitat for a number of wildlife species. However, none of these species aze rare or endangered. The area is considered to be a fairly important raptor wintering area. This determination was made as a result of the area being a location where raptorial birds (hawks, vultures, eagles, owls and falcons) concentrate due to a high abundance of roosting sites, a good supply of prey species (small mammals and birds) and suitable hunting habitat (generally open brushland and grassland). As a raptor wintering area, however, the site is not of high significance within the context of regional biological resources. It was not, for example, called out as an area of high biological importance by the California Department of Fish and Game (1979) as was the azea around Perris Reservoir because of its raptor habitat. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-79 b. Project Impacts O Construction activities will result in the removal of physical habitats through cut, fill and other grading activities necessary for roads, building pads, utilities, fuel modification and flood control. The first order impacts of habitat loss will be the direct loss of vegetation and the destruction of less mobile wildlife forms. In and of itself, the significance of vegetation loss will depend on the diversity and availability of plant communities and associations affected. From the standpoint of biological diversity, the loss of introduced grassland from the site will not constitute a significant adverse impact. The same will be true for the loss of less mobile wildlife forms since they are highly habitat dependent and their abundance and diversity aze directly related to those of their habitats. The impacts of vegetation loss through direct removal will, in turn, have potential effects on wildlife. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will either be destroyed (as mentioned above for less mobile forms) or will be displaced to adjacent habitat azeas where they will crowd and disrupt local populations. Although increased competition and predation will act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels, either displaced or local wildlife will be lost. Since the determinants of their severity aze the relative importance of habitats lost to local and regional wildlife populations, the abundance and diversity of wildlife these habitats support, the availability of these habitats, and the habitat dependency of the O associated wildlife, the loss of habitat from the site will not be significant. Causal factors generated during human activities resulting from the construction and inhabitation of urban land uses may be collectively termed "harassment". Harassment is defined as those activities of man and his associated domestic animals which increase the physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction in wildlife populations. The most common form of harassment expected to accompany development of the site include excessive construction-related noise, background noise, light and glare and the introduction of feral cats, dogs and children which are unnatural predators and competitors for wildlife. Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic community to urban development will reduce azeawide dryland fazming foraging habitat for raptors. As mentioned above, however, the azea is not considered to be of high significance in this regard, nor does it contain the habitat for raze and endangered species and the loss of habitat will not be significantly adverse. The same holds true for the loss of habitat supporting other grassland species of wildlife. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1JE.I.R. NO. 348 V-80 Impacts to streambeds (or 'blue-line streams") on-site, regardless of whether they contain riparian vegetation or sensitive faunal species, will be governed by the California O Department of Fish and Game (1601-1603 permit) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permit) and their respective streambed alteration permit processes. As a result, the required amount of replacement habitat shall be provided either on- or off- site. Based upon these findings, it is concluded that the proposed project will not in and of itself result in significant adverse impacts. Cumulative Impacts Although not significant in itself, the loss of introduced grassland habitat described above for the proposed project will contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources on a regional basis. These impacts are those which. are now occurring in the region as a result of past and planned developments in the region. These impacts include: o An overall reduction in the native biotic resources of the region. o Loss of secondary foraging habitat for migratory populations of birds of prey which are winter visitors to the region. Adherence to the mitigation measures noted below will not reduce these cumulative (or regional) impacts to a level of insignificance and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. General Plan Relationship O The Campos Verdes project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standazd land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The project site is shown as lying within the range of the Stephen's kangaroo rat on the County's Map of Endangered, Raze and Threatened Wildlife Ranges and Habitats, as is all of Western Riverside County. No unique plant communities are shown as existing on-site, per the County's Map of Vegetation Resources. The Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Comprehensive General Plan contains the following Land Use Standards relative to Wildlife and Vegetation: V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-81 O o Detailed biological reports, including inventories, impact assessment and mitigation shall be prepared and submitted. o Disruption of sensitive vegetation shall be kept to a minimum, and adequate measures to protect vegetative species shall be taken. o Where possible, landscaping shall be accomplished through the use of vegetation native to the project site. o Adequate provision shall be made for the retention of existing trees and other flora, and where necessary, immediate planting shall be planned and implemented. In accordance with these Land Use Standards, a Biological Assessment and a Stephen's kangaroo rat trapping survey, were prepared for the project and are submitted as part of this Specific Plan/EIR document. (See Technical Appendix E of this EIR). Adherence to mitigations noted below will reduce impacts to the Stephen's kangaroo rat on a region-wide basis to a level acceptable to the local, state and federal regulatory agencies. c. Mitigation Measures O 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for developmentand/or the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-half (1/2) gross acre in size. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County Ordinance or resolution. 2. The developer shall participate in the Development Mitigation Fee Program, pursuant to the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP). These fees are used partially to fund habitat conservation and open space acquisition. 3. In concert with construction activities within the on-site drainage areas, the California Department of Fish and Game will be notified and consulted pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1603 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with their 404 permit process. This permit process may result O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-82 in the provision of suitable replacement habitat to mitigate the habitat loss either on- or off-site. O d. Level of Significance After 11'Yitigation In spite of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to wildlife/vegetation (i.e. the loss of regional biotic resources and secondary foraging habitat) is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-83 12. EPIERGY RES®URCES O a. E>~sting Conditions In its existing vacant condition, the project site consumes little or no energy, except that needed in association with agricultural use. "b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will increase energy consumption for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration and air conditioning, operation and construction equipment, use of miscellaneous home appliances, energy required to produce the construction materials and all other material aspects of the project. As discussed in Section D.7, Utilities, on-site natural gas demand for Campos Verdes is estimated at 4,745,368 cubic feet (c.f.) per month, based upon 6,665 c.f./mo. per single- family dwelling unit, 4,105 c.f./mo. per multi-family dwelling unit, and 2.0 c.f/mo. per square foot for commercial;commercial/office use (The square footage total is based upon an assumed floor to area ratio of 35%a coverage. This lot coverage ratio has been selected in order to provide an assessment of maximum probable "worst-case" impacts). On-site electricity for Campos Verdes is estimated at 8,375,385 kilowatts (kwh) per year. This figure is based upon 6,081 kwh/yr. per dwelling unit, and 8.8 kwh/yr. per square foot for O commercial;commercial/office use. Although project development will increase the consumption of electrical and natural gas resources the estimated project usage is not considered to be a significant impact. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following Land Use Standard is applicable to the Specific Plan: 1. Solar Enemy in New Development -The use of solar energy for water heating in residential, commercial, and industrial projects in all Land Use Categories shall be encouraged. Project layout design shall facilitate the use of passive and active solar O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-84 systems. The use of solar energy for space heating should also be developed in large scale residential, commercial, and industrial projects, where feasible. O Aa discussed under "Mitigation Measures," the use of solar application will be used where applicable. c. I!h[itigation Ii~easures The development of neighborhood commercial;commercial/office use will provide local residents with facilities and services that will reduce the length of vehiculaz trips. In addition, the following specific mitigations are recommended: 1. Passive solar heating techniques shall be encouraged whenever possible throughout the project. Passive systems involve orienting buildings properly, planting trees to take advantage of the sun, seeing that roof over hangs are adequate, making sure that walls are properly insulated, and installing simple heat storage systems. 2. Building energy conservation will largely be achieved for both residential and commercial;commercial/office use by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code. Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2-5307 (b) is the California Energy Conservation Standazd for New Buildings which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5452 (i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water O reaches equipment of fixtures. Title 20, California Administrative Code Sections 1604 (f) and 1601 (b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rates of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non-conforming fixtures. d. Level of Significance After IVlitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to energy resources has been reduced to an insignificant level. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 34S V-85 13. SCEAIIC ffiGHWAYS O a. E~sting Conditions According to the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, as well as the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) Land Use Policies, the SWAP area contains two Eligible County Scenic Highways (I-215 and State Route 79 South) and one Eligible State Scenic Highway (I-15). According to SWAP, the following policies shall apply to uses proposed along these corridors: a. Outstanding scenic vistas and visual features shall be preserved. b. Vista points with interpretive displays shall be developed along scenic corridors. ' c. When feasible, recreational trails and other compatible public recreation facilities shall be incorporated within scenic corridors. d. The design and appearance of new structures within scenic corridors shall be compatible with the setting or environment. e. All new development within scenic corridors shall maintain at least a 50 foot setback from the edge of the right-of--way. O f. The size, height and type of outdoor advertising displays within scenic corridors shall be the minimum necessary for identification. g. Within scenic corridors, trees and other roadside planting shall be utilized to protect and enhance the view from the road. h. Earthmoving operations which expose soil surfaces shall be required to reestablish vegetation to bind the soil, prevent water or wind erosion and reestablish a natural vegetative appearance. i. Any new electric or communication distribution lines or the relocation of existing overhead facilities in proximity to, and which would be visible from scenic corridors shall be placed underground whenever feasible in accordance with Public Utilities Commission regulations. O b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Planning Areas 4 and 5 of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan are adjacent to Winchester Road (Highway 79) an Eligible County Scenic Highway. Planning Area 4 proposes 13.5 acres of Commercial use, while Planning Area 5 proposes 15.7 acres of Very High Density (17 d.u./acre). Winchester Road is proposed to be landscaped with V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-86 a grand boulevard thematic landscape treatment, as Winchester Road is the main freeway access to Campos Verdes. Because Winchester Road is a Caltrans highway, the O landscape development zone is a minimum of 24' wide. In addition to the 24' LDZ, an additional 25' is allocated to a City of Temecula Transportation Corridor easement. Winchester Road also has a 12' right-of--way between the curb face and beginning of the Transportation Corridor easement. As shown on Figure IV-2, Winchester Road Streetscene at Commercial Land Use, the Scenic Highway requirement fora 50' setback will be exceeded by the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This required 50' setback will also be exceeded in the Multi-Family area, as shown on Figure 1V-3, Winchester Road Streetscene at Multi-Family Residential Land Use-Section. Landscaping is discussed in greater detail in Section 1V.B., Landscape Design Guidelines. The size, height and type of outdoor advertising displays within scenic corridors (along Winchester Road) are discussed in Section IV.C.c.ll., Commercial Signage. It is anticipated that the City will review the proposed signs and determine whether they aze consistent with the intent of the Scenic Highways Element. In regards to the other Scenic Highway policies, the following comparison of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan is provided. The project site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas which warrant preservation, thereby also eliminating the need for any interpretive displays, roadside rests, etc. Also, recreational trails or other public recreation facilities are not considered compatible with the noise levels and traffic volumes associated with Winchester Road. Since no bicycle or recreational trails are designated by SWAP along Winchester Road, none are proposed by the Specific Plan. O The project will revegetate any exposed soil surfaces, as discussed in Section V.C.2., Slopes and Erosion. Utility lines will be placed underground. Qxeneral Plan gtelationship The proposed project's relationship to the Scenic Highways Element of the Comprehensive General Plan and to SWAP Scenic Highhway policies is discussed in the preceeding paragraphs. c. 1Vlitigation 1Vleasures 1. The proposed Specific Plan design is intended to mitigate any potential impacts to Winchester Road (Highway 79), an Eligible County Scenic Highway. The proposed project places all existing utility lines underground and will revegetate any exposed soil surfaces. A 50 foot setback along scenic highways will be provided and landscaped. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-87 d. Level of Significance After Mitigation O Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to scenic highways has been reduced to an insignificant level. O O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-88 14. CUY.TZJRAY. AN%D SC%ENTIFIC IZES®UIBCES The information below is a summary of two reports entitled: 1) "An Archaeological O Assessment of the Campos Verdes Zone Change, Riverside County, California," dated October 21, 1989, prepared by Christopher E. Drover Ph.D, Consulting Archaeologist; and 2) "Paleontological Resources Assessment, Campos Verdes Project, Rancho California, California," dated October 19, 1989, prepared by RMW Paleo Associates. These reports are included in their entirety as Appendix C and D respectively to this document. a. E~sting Conditions Archaeology A review of the archaeological site records on file at the Archaeological Research Unit (ARV), University of California, Riverside, showed no sites within the project boundaries. However, one site (RIV - 1730) is recorded immediately south of the project, northwest of the I-15 -Winchester Road intersection. The site, however, has been previously mitigated and is no longer in existence (Drover 1986). This site was estimated to be 4-5,000 years old (based on it's time sensitive artifact content) and consisted of a campsite-village which predominant artifacts consisted of food processing tools. An on- site archaeological field survey was conducted in November 1988 by Mr. Andy Jackson. The survey was accomplished by performing circular tranaects de£med by the project boundaries and geographic contours. As a result of these efforts, no cultural resources O were found on the project site. Paleontology The project site is primarily recent alluvium with exposures of the Pauba Formation. The Pauba is exposed mainly along stream channels, gullies and in road cuts. Recent grading monitoring has produced large numbers of fossil Vertebrate animals from this formation within the Rancho California and Murrieta area. Several specimens have been excavated and archived at the Los Angeles County Museum, while several are awaiting study. The earliest recorded fossils were exposed northeast of the Ynez Road and Winchester Road intersection (Mann 1955, Raschke 1988). Over 75 different taxa have been collected from the Pauba Formation and the "unnamed sandstone" unit within the Winchester Hills area. The Pauba Formation has contained lazge numbers of significant vertebrate fossils within the area of Rancho California, Murrieta and the Winchester Hills contributing great importance in understanding the Pleistocene paleontology of Southern California and possibly even North America (Raschke 1988). Fossil resources have been recently uncovered on the Campos Verdes site. These resources include: V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-89 1. A late Iruingtonian Age record of Mammuthus sp. of M. meridonalis (extinct O mammoth), a species thought to have gone extinct by the middle Iruingtonian Age. This occurrence may therefore be the latest record of the species in North America. 2. A late Irvingtonian Age record of Smilodon fatalis, the sabre-toothed cat. This species has not been previously reported from the Irvingtonian Age; the occurrence at this locale is therefore among the earliest in North America. 3. A late Iruingtonian record of Tanirus sp. (lg) which is possibly the earliest-reported occurrence of this extinct tapir, as tapirs of this size and morphology are not reported earlier than the Rancholabrean Age. 4. Anew record of Glossotherium hardani the extinct gain ground sloth. This beast has not previously been reported from Riverside County. In addition, numerous specimens of large horse, Eauus bautistensis have been recovered. The paleontological assessment for the proposed project consisted of a literature review and records search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles and the San Bernardino County Museum, contact with Dr. J. D. Stewart of the Los Angeles County Museum and Mr. Robert Reynolds of the San Bernardino County Museum regarding known fossil localities both within the site and in the general vicinity, and a walkover survey of the property conducted by Mr. Dave Stevens, Ms. Marilyn Morgan and Ms. O Diana Weir performed on November 3, 1988. As a result of the assessment no paleontological resources were located on-site. b. Project Impacts/(ueneral Plan Relationship Archaeology As pereviously mentioned, no archaeological resources have been found on-site. The absence of any significant archaeological sites or resources on-site eliminates any potential negative impacts that would be incurred as a result of development. Paleontology The paleontological sensitivity of a rock unit is determined by its past history of fossil discovery. This sensitivity is a measure of the potential for the discovery of paleontological resources during earthmoving activities. Project implementation could expose fossils through grading and other developmental activities, but at the same time, can destroy these same remains. This would have a significant adverse impact on the paleontological resources of the region. The recent alluvial deposits are sediments laid down by streams that flowed across the region within the last 10,000 years. These sediments are considered to be too young geologically to contain any significant fossils. Considering its past history of fossil discovery, the Pauba Formation is considered to O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-90 have a Moderate to High paleontological sensitivity. The recent alluvium is considered to have a low paleontologic sensitivity. However, the recent alluvium over the project O site could be a thin veneer and grading could expose any underlying Pauba Formation. Proper mitigation measures are required to reduce the adverse impact of development and protect the paleontological resources of the project area. Queneral ]Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards Maps, Public Facilities Mapa, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The General Plan Land Use Standard for Cultural and Scientific Resources states that development proposals shall be assessed for impacts upon these resources. Further, development proposals found to have a significant impact upon cultural and scientific resources shall provide adequate mitigation measures. In accordance with these standards, both archaeological and paleontological assessments were performed on the proposed project site. These assessments are included as O Technical Appendix C and D, respectively to this document. Mitigations recommended in these reports are presented below. c. 11h[itigation 1dYeasures Archaeology 1. No cultural resources were observed on the subject property therefore no cultural resource constraints exist for the project and no mitigation measures are proposed. However, if any cultural resources are encountered as a result of grading, it is recommended that a qualified azchaeologist be retained to immediately evaluate the resources to determine if they are significant and, if so, to develop a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of mitigation. Paleontology The mitigation recommendations aze drawn from past efforts which have proven successful in protecting paleontological resources, while allowing timely completion of developments in Rancho California and elsewhere in Southern California. The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce the adverse impacts of the V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R» NO. 34S V-91 development of the Campos Verdes Zone Change to an acceptable level as well as to O protect the fossil resources on-site. A qualified vertebrate paleontologist shall develop a Paleontologic Resource Impact Mitigation Program, prior to issuance of grading permits, which shall include but not be limited to: a. Monitoring of excavation in areas likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are Zikely to contain the remains of small fossil vertebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. .b. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification, including washing of sediments to recover small fossil vertebrates. c. Identification and curation ofspecimens into a museum repository with retrievable storage. d. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, signifies completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic O resources. d. Level of Significance After 1Viitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to cultural and scientific resources has been reduced to an insignficant level. O V. GENERAL PLANJENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VER.DES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-92 IID. ]~~]L~~ IF~CIDLg7['IDE~ A1~lIID ~]E]E8,R71[~lE~ ]EILlEI~1~I7[' 1. CYRCULATYOIV AN%D T)EiAFFYC O The following discussion summarizes the "Campos Verdes EIR Traffic Impact Study" prepazed by Wilbur Smith Associates (May, 1991) and the "Campos Verdes S.P. No. 1/EIR On-Site Circulation Modifications" also prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (June, 1992). These studies aze included in their entirety as Technical Appendix F. a. E~sting Conditions The Campos Verdes project site lies adjacent to and is immediately served by Winchester and Margarita Roads to the north and west respectively, within the City of Temecula. The southern portion of the project site is divided by General Kearny Road. Figure V- 11, Existing Traffic/Roadway Characteristics depicts the existing number of travel lanes and type of traffic control at intersections in the project area as well as estimated 1990 traffic volumes. These existing roadway facilities serving the subject property aze discussed below. Winchester Road (State Route 79) is a regional State highway which provides regional access to and from the HemetBanning area (northeast of Temecula) as well as local access to and from Interstate 15 (I-15). Winchester Road is a four- lane Major Street west of I-15 and asix-lane Urban arterial east of I-15 (between I-15 and Margarita Road). Northeast of Mazgazita Road, Winchester Road tapers O down to two lanes. Winchester Road west of Jefferson Avenue has been generally improved to its ultimate four-lane width. East of Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road will ultimately provide six continuous travel lanes. The improvement of Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road is currently in the final stages of design review. Margarita Road/General Kearny Road is a two to four-lane Arterial street which currently becomes North General Kearny north of Solana Way. Margarita Road will ultimately be extended north across Winchester Road and continue north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. (See Figure V-11, Existing Traffic/Roadway Characteristics). The extension of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road may, according to the Traffic Engineer, be built in two phases and would at least be partially funded by Community Facilities District 88-12. The extension of Margarita Road between Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road is being funded by Assessment District 161. Major drainage structures are already under construction along this alignment. Ynez Road is currently afour-lane road in the vicinity of Rancho California Road, but narrows to two lanes north of Rancho California Plaza. North of Solana Way, Ynez Road widens to three lanes (one northbound, two southbound) and then to six lanes in the vicinity of Palm Plaza. North of Winchester Road, Ynez has been V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-93 0 y ~ U Ur U ~ U ( \ Z W W v J o °ao r ~ W 0 o oz ~~ JO az oc 5 o w ~ z ~ ~r ~ xU ~= ~> ~, ~, O z w 0 0 c 3 3 ~ ~o e ~ U C n y ~ ~ o ~ s E ~n ~~ r _ _ m 25 zS a £ ~` m i _; . ~ ~~ „3 Q ~ 0 v rnv ~~ j w Q ~ C7 ~ LL ~ ~~~ 0 y ~4J Q U `e /~ W' J o 5 ® N h 4' O .1 N n N s ` U Ci \'~Jj /1 O Y improved to a full four-lane (Major) width cross-section up to its present terminus O neaz Equity Drive. The widening of Ynez Road to six lanes from Palm Plaza south to Rancho California Road is currently being undertaken through Community Facilities District 88-12. Construction on this segment should be initiated in the third or fourth quarter of 1992. Solana Way is a two-lane Major road which connects Ynez Road with Mazgazita Road. East of Margarita Road, Solana Way becomes a Secondary road serving residential areas in the vicinity of the project site. Rancho California Road is a principal east-west roadway which provides access to I-15, the Rancho California Plaza and downtown Temecula business areas for residential areas east and west of the I-15 freeway/business corridor. East of Front Street, Rancho California Road is an Arterial roadway providing four travel lanes to a point east of Ynez Road and the Town Shopping Center. The two-lane section between the Town Shopping Center and Cosmic Drive is currently under construction. The Escondido Freeway (Interstate 15) is a major north-south freeway serving the Temecula area, linking it to Riverside, the Los Angeles metropolitan azea (via the Corona freeway) and San Diego. In the vicinity of the proposed project, I-15 has eight through travel lanes. Project site access to and from I-15 is provided via a "modified diamond" type interchange located at Winchester Road (State O Route 79) west of the project site. An interchange at Rancho California Road is located approximately one and three quazters mile south of Winchester Road. The two-lane section between the Town Shopping Center and Cosmic Drive is currently under construction. Jefferson Avenue/Front Street is located west of and parallel to I-15 and is currently designated as a four-lane Major Street within the project area. South of Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue is improved to its ultimate width. North of Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue has been improved to a four-lane Major Roadway to a point north of Cherry Street. Nicolas Road is a two-lane east-west roadway which intersects Winchester Road northeast of the project site. Nicolas Road, a designated Arterial, currently serves residential areas east of Winchester Road. Roripaugh Road - is a two lane collector road which extends from Winchester Road to Nicolas Road and currently serves the Roripaugh Hills development. Traffic controls at principal intersections along major roadways serving the project area are currently limited to "stop" sign control. Most of the existing signalized intersections are located on Winchester Road neaz the I-15 Freeway and along Ynez Road south of Winchester Road. Signals are currently installed along Winchester Road at Jefferson O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFI PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-95 Avenue, the I-15 Interchange Ramps, Ynez Road and at Margarita Meadows Drive. Signals along Ynez Road are located at the main access to Palm Plaza, Motor Car O Parkway, Solana Way and Rancho California Road. Four-way stop controls currently exist at the intersection of Winchester Road/Diaz Road and Margarita Road/Solana Way. The currently planned circulation system for the azea is depicted in Figure V-12, Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan. Some of the key features of the planned circulation system in the immediate vicinity of the project which do not exist today are: o The extension of Margarita Road north across Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; o The extension of General Kearny Road to Nicolas Road; o The improvement of Winchester Road to six continuous travel lanes east of I-15 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and o The construction of a freeway overpass at Overland Drive (Apricot Avenue) with an easterly extension to Margarita Road. It should be noted that the anticipated transportation system depicted in Figure V-12 includes a proposed change in the location where Apricot Avenue intersects Margarita Road. The anticipated roadway network used in this traffic study reflects the proposed O internal circulation roadways for the Temecula Regional Center project. This proposed network calls for Apricot Avenue to intersect Margarita Road approximately mid-way between General Kearny Road and Solana Way instead of at General Kearny Road. It should also be noted that the analysis included in this study does not assume a potential extension of General Kearny Road westerly through the Temecula Regional Center to intersect with Ynez Road. This issue is currently being discussed as a possible modification to the Temecula Regional Center site plan. The review of 1990/1991 traffic volumes and roadway capacities in the project area indicate that all existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a Level of Service C or better except for the following: o Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Level of Service D; o Ynez Road between the Town Center and Solana Way -Level of Service D; o Winchester Road between Jefferson Avenue and I-15 -Level of Service D; Signalized intersection analyses indicated that all but the following intersections currently operate at service level "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours: V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-96 O 7 L S ~Z z ~OQ _Wa ~~c ~cW Z '~ W (9 ~ 'c C9 W J b Q ~ 2 e '< y z g 4 vv < 1>jZ ~` yy~! < ~ ~ u~ 2 6 2 ~ p ~ yV~ ~ F~ Q 'N ~ vY 0 3 sr U F ~e o- 5 - 5~ C -~ .~_ C 5. Q'-y A y5 z.t c. i ~ 3 ~ m ~S ~ ~ & S Qo cav ~~ w ~ ~ s ~ c~ ~ ~OO`~pp~ \o O3 S i O V//iaaV ~ J ~/ a `^ h ~l~/ q U E F: ~D" 1 0 ® N //~ n I \ n _~A__ C O a~. h n N U C Ci 9~Q o Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue -Level of Service D during AM and PM O peak hours; o Winchester Road/Ynez Road -Borderline Level of Service C/D during PM peak hour; o Rancho California Road/I-15 Ramps -Level of Service D (AM peak hour and Level of Service D/E (PM peak hour}; and o Rancho California Road/Ynez Road -Level of Service D during AM and PM peak hours. Based on the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant evaluations, preliminary signal warrants appeaz to be satisfied at the Winchester Road/Nicolas Road intersections indicating a need for a signal at that intersection. Local transit service is currently limited to RTA Route 23. This route travels on Margarita Road, Ynez Road, and Winchester Road in the vicinity of the project site and operates at approximate one hour intervals. Although azea population at project build- out could support a higher degree of transit service, none has been assumed in the traffic analysis. At the present time, Transportation System Management (TSM) programs underway in the Temecula area include carpool incentive programs which have been implemented by a few of the major employers. O b. Project Impacts Prior to the assignment of project traffic and the assessment of project related traffic impacts, it was necessary to make certain assumptions regazding the configuration of area roadways which would serve the proposed project. The assumed post-project area roadway network depicted in Figure V-13, Anticipated Transportation System, includes existing roads as well as proposed roads which are internal to the project. The improvements include the extension of Mazgazita Road from General Kearny Road north of Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, the widening of Winchester Road to six lanes from east of I-15 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, the extension of General Kearny Road to Nicolas Road, and the extension of Overland Drive (Apricot Avenue) west to Jefferson Avenue. These ultimate improvements aze consistent with the Circulation Element of Riverside County General Plan (see Figure V-12). Traffic Forecasting Methodology Traffic volumes generated by the proposed project were estimated using the traffic forecasting model previously developed for the Rancho California Regional Transportation Planning Study. The regional forecasting model consists of approximately 400 transportation analysis zones (TAZ's) and over 4,500 street links. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 34S V-98 O 0 y~ C Z 0 ~ ~f ~ W _ ~l Z ti ~ ~ 8 ~ a 3 m $ c a d ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~° a~ t~ S qq - ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~g ~3 ~ a ~ , ~~~~~ ~ «a ~ ~ `n ~ g O ~ 5.` U ~ ~Q m~ 3_ ~~ ~a C 5. '. ~ 3~ z5 P, « s~ m _'~~_ F a~ °~ Qo v rn-v ~~ W ~ P > o~~~ ~S ~a `~ a U a E /~ Y/ J o ® N /~ h o a° O ~. h n N s \ Ci Ci 1r~Jj/1 0 k The TAZs were expanded to include the land uses proposed by the Campos Verdes O project as well as the proposed Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills development and Winchester Meadows Industrial Park. The street network was assumed to reflect the anticipated on-site circulation network and off-site roadway access to these other three projects. Additional detail on traffic forecasting methodology, including a copy of the base link-node/TAZ network is provided in the Traffic Study included as Appendix F. Existing Plus Project Traffic Forecasts O O An estimate of vehicle trips which would be generated by the proposed Campos Verdes project were developed, based on the proposed land use mix. Approximately 16,184 vehicle trips would be generated daily as a result of project development. Morning peak hour trip generation is estimated to be 997 trips while evening peak hour generation for the project is estimated to be approximately 1,179 vehicle trips. (See Table XIII, Vehicle Trip Generation Summary). Land Use Hour Neighborhood Retail Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Commercial Office TABLE XIII VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY No. of Units/ Total Acres Daily AM Peak Hour Pm Peak 10 acres 8,000 409 574 644 du's 4,264 290 311 206 du's 2,060 153 148 9.3 acres 1.860 145 146 16,184 997 1,179 Total vehicle miles of travel (VMT) generated by the Campos Verdes project was estimated by multiplying the total daily project vehicle trips by the average trip length estimated for all trips. The average trip length and total VMT also include trips which would be made internal to the development (e.g., between employment, commercial and V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-100 residential uses within the project). The project could generate an estimated 113,288 vehicle miles of travel daily based on an average trip length of 7.0 miles. O The distribution and assignment of project traffic was performed using the Gravity traffic model method. Existing traffic volumes, (adjusted to reflect the post-project street network) were then added to project related traffic volumes to represent the existing plus project traffic conditions illustrated in Figure V-14, Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic. The resulting year 2000 traffic projections for the "existing plus project" impact scenario are depicted in Figure V-15, Projected Daily Traffic (Year 2000 With Project) as well as Figure 16, Projected Daily Traffic (Year 2000, Without Regional Center). However, any conclusions utilizing "existing plus project" projections would not consider increases in non-project related traffic to the year 2000. Existing Plus Project Roadway and Intersection Service Levels Volume capacity comparisons were made for all roadways which would provide primary access to the Campos Verdes project. Roadway capacities used in this analysis are based on Riverside County "standard" capacities developed for General Plan Circulation Element roads and reflect the traffic lanes assumed in the post-project area roadway network (See Figure V-13, Anticipated Transportation System). Findings of the existing plus project roadway service level analyzes that all of the assumed roadway segments would operate at Level of Service "B" or better (Table XIV, Campos Verdes ICU O Summary provides a detailed explanation of these various Levels of Service). Based upon the magnitude of the project-related traffic volumes, a far less extensive network of roadways with fewer traffic lanes than that assumed in the analysis would be necessary to serve "existing plus project" traffic flows (absent any additional "cumulative development" traffic). Several of the proposed new roadways in the area will primarily serve other, approved projects in the area. Proposed improvements to Mazgazita Road between Winchester and General Kearny Roads K~ould be necessary to serve "existing plus project" traffic volumes. An interim two lane roadway would provide adequate traffic service to accommodate "existing plus project" traffic at Level of Service "A". "Existing plus project" traffic levels would likely warrant a traffic signal at the Winchester Road/Margazita Road intersection. It is anticipated that approximately 25 to 30 percent of the traffic currently using Ynez Road north of Solana Way (approximately 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day) could be diverted to the Margarita Road extension. This traffic combined with the project-related traffic using the Margarita Road extension would result in Level of Service C or better operations. Cumulative Development (Year 2000) Analysis Traffic forecasts were developed to assess the cumulative traffic impacts of the Campos Verdes project and other major development projects. The assessment of cumulative V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-101 O O ti ~ W J 0 W W J o a ~ 0 c ~ ~ y w o ~ Z U p ~ U ~ LL 8 m ~ U ~ U Z = O I ~ G _~ o ~s ~E _~ Fa 5° _:-_ 3, a a ~ =c v~ ~< Ci 'F 3s °s 0 p @A j \~ W Q IL77 7 C7 > Op ~( R ~~p`~ 3 1ao~ ~ O (`~ J ~{G/ h E F Y! J o r ® N h a C O k ~" w N n N s \ U Ci ~t~Ji/1 O Y O U w ~' O ~ ~ UU°o w~N ~¢w 0 W W J 0 0 z a 0 o m LL w m _~ o ~. E ~~' ~r A `~3~3 a _~ y° F a~ °_ Qo v ¢,v •~ N W Q 7 W n ~oo` ~pp~~~ O /~ ~ J a `~{I `n M ~1~:/ q U 3 W / O h I \ a _~A__ C O h ry U C Ci O c z J o °oo N c U Q z ~ \W\ T U O_ O C aO V S w w J 0 0 0 'o O m a m ~ n ~~ a ~ sa ~a m ~~ ~t ~a_a n.~_~ a ol; m 3~ ~o ai a= e= F. ;.., uo vrnv .d ® ~ w C7 LL ~u°o~/~~ on O r~ ryry~J, ~I~l F Y/ J o ® ~ /~ ~ r , O 1~-A~J1 M. O ~~ .ti h n N U O Ci Y development impacts with and without the project provides the most realistic evaluation O of the project related traffic impacts and ultimate roadway needs in the area. The methodology used in the traffic operations analysis follows the requirements set forth in the "Traffic Impact Study Report Preparation Guide" developed by Riverside County Road Department. The analyses include volume/capacity comparisons for: (1) key roadway segments; and (2) intersections that would be used by site-related traffic. The analyses focus more on the evaluation of study area intersections since intersections are typically the limiting capacity factor when determining a roadway's traffic carrying ability. Local Access Major intersections expected to provide direct access to the Campos Verdes project can be grouped into those intersections along Margarita Road, General Kearny Road as well as interior intersections along Campos Verdes Loop Road. (See Figure V-15, Projected Daily Traffic Year 2000 with Project). The Margarita Road/Campos Verdes Loop Road intersection would operate at service level "B" or better during peak periods (based on the ICU analysis) for year 2000 development conditions with the project and both with and without the Regional Center. The Margarita Road/General Kearny Road intersection would operate at a Level of Service "B" with the Campos Verdes project but without the Regional Center. O The five intersections along General Kearny Road would operate at a Level of Service "A" during peak periods at ultimate project development. Intersections along Campos Verdes Loop Road within the interior of the project site would also operate at "C" or better (using two-way stop sign controls on the minor streets). Off-Site Roadways Volume capacity comparisons were made for the study area roadways to assess the roadway service levels which would be expected for cumulative development traffic conditions. Findings of the cumulative development roadway segment service levels are summarized in Figure V-17, Roadway Segment Service Levels (Year 2000, With Project), Figure V-18, Roadway Segment Service Levels (Year 2000, Without Regional Center) and Table XIV, Campos Verdes ICU Summary. Future year 2000 off-site traffic conditions were analyzed relative to future levels of service on affected roadway segments as well as principal intersections in the area. Future traffic conditions were analyzed within four scenarios: 1. Future traffic without the proposed Campos Verdes Project; O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 34S V-105 O O a /QO1~~ ~a°o~ y e ~;. F O C ~- W ~: m W O O ~ 3„ U s _-c m s~s~ O 5 e~ "~ V J a ~ a a ~<°o ~ w ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~~ ~~ ~ J O ~ ° W Qo QUON ~ ~ od O c Q °z ~ W C ~ ~ W ° ~/J o ® N /~ h e C `e ~. H n N s ` U Ci 1(~Jj /1 O 9~Q O ~- W ~~ U w ~ ~ z O O W ~ W > ~ ~ ( ~ `J C J ~ U ~ ~w ~ W 4U v , ~ 0 W W J 4 c o U U ~ a ~ m ~ w f o ~ O G _~= O ~?S U v .e ~~~.. 2 VV.. ~ ~~ ~~ z Ca =~ ~ ~~ a~ Qo v ¢~,v m 5 w Q LL ~00~~ 1G0~ ~ O l/~'~ `nJ G IAI~`n y G Q U a F ~ o r ® N /~ y b a° O r o`. h N U O Ci k 2. Future traffic with the proposed project assuming development of the adjacent O Temecula Regional Center; 3. Future traffic with the proposed project but without development of the proposed Regional Center; and 4. Future traflc conditions on affected roadways assuming additional traffic improvements. The comparison of with and without project conditions on area roadways provides a measure of the relative impact of the proposed project. Conditions with the project and without the Regional Center were also evaluated to assess the differences in cumulative impacts with development of the adjacent Regional Center project. Future Service Levels -Without Proiect All off-site roadway segments in the area would operate at level of service "C" or better in the year 2000 assuming the Campos Verdes project is not developed with the exception of the five roadway segments listed below: o Winchester Road from I-15 to Ynez Road -Level of Service F. o Ynez Road from Winchester Road to Santa Gertrudis Creek -Level of Service D. O o Jefferson Avenue from Winchester Road to Santa Gertrudis Creek -Level of Service D. o Date Street from Jefferson Avenue to Jackson Avenue -Level of Service D. o Washington Avenue from Cherry Street to Date Street -Level of Service D. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-108 TABLE XIV Campos Verdes ICU Summary ~'~ With Project Year 2000 Year 2000 Without Without With Regional With Intersection Pro~ect~2~ Proiect~g~ Center~'~ Imnrovements~s~ Margarita Rd/ General Kearny Rd A B B NA Mazgazita Rd/ Apricot Ave A A B NA Ynez Rd/Solana Way D C C NA Ynez Rd/Overland (Apricot Ave) C C C NA Ynez Rd/ Winchester Rd E E E D Margarita Rd/ Winchester Rd C B C NA Jefferson Ave/ Winchester Rd F F F D Jefferson Ave/Date St D C C NA Winchester Rd/ Murrieta Hot Springs Rd B B A NA Jefferson Ave/ Overland (Apricot Ave) D C B NA NB I-15 Ramps/ Winchester Road D C D NA O O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-109 TABLE XIV (Continued) O Campos Verdes ICU Summary ~'~ With Project Year 2000 Yeaz 2000 Without Without With Regional With Intersection Proiect~z~ Proiect~3~ Centers"~ Improvements°~ SB I-15 Ramps/ Winchester Road D C C NA ~'~ Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) figures listed take the lower (i.e. poorer) level of service from either the AM or PM peak hour. cz~ Based upon Table 4A of the Campos Verdes Traffic Analysis. ca> Based upon Table 4B of the Campos Verdes Traffic Analysis and the Supplemental Traffic Analysis. ~'~ Based upon Table 4C of the Campos Verdes Traffic Analysis. cs~ Based upon Table 5 of the Campos Verdes Traffic Analysis. O NA =Not applicable since L.O.S. "C" or better is achieved with project. Levels of Service: A = Free flow traffic movement (0-60% intersection capacity utilization). B = Generally free flow traffic movement, some constrictions (61%-70% intersection capacity utilization). C = Acceptable movement, rural roadway standard (71%-80% intersection capacity utilization). D = Restricted flows, urban roadway standard (81%-90% intersection capacity utilization). E = Flows at capacity of roadway, with stoppages (91%-100% intersection capacity utilization). F = Overload and congested roadway (over 100% intersection capacity utilization. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-110 As indicated in Table XIV, Intersection Capacity Utilization analyses in the study area O indicate that five intersections would operate at a level of service "D", one intersection would operate at level of service "E", and one intersection would operate at level of service "F" within the "future traffic, without project" scenario for the AM or PM peak hour. Those intersections operating at a AM or PM peak hour level of service "D", "E" or "F" are listed below: o Ynez Road/Solana Way (Level of Service "D"). o Winchester Road/Ynez Road (Level of Service "E"). o Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue (Level of Service "F"). o Jefferson Avenue/Date Street (Level of Service "D") o Jefferson Avenue/Apricot Avenue (Level of Service "D"). o Northbound I-15 Ramps/Winchester Road (Level of Service "D"). o Southbound I-15 Ramps/Winchester Road (Level of Service "D"). Future Traffic Levels -With Proiect All of the off-site roadway segments impacted by the proposed project (assuming O development of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills and Winchester Meadows projects) would at project build-out operate at a level of service "C" or better with the exception of the ICU roadway segments listed below: o Winchester Road from I-15 to Ynez Road -Level of Service E/F. o Ynez Road from Winchester Road to Santa Gertrudis Creek -Level of Service D. o Jefferson Avenue from Winchester Road to Santa Gertrudis Creek -Level of Service D. o Date Street from Jefferson Avenue to Jackson Avenue -Level of Service D. o Washington Avenue from Cherry Street to Date Street -Level of Service D. As indicated on Table XIV, Intersection Capacity Utilization analyses for the study area indicate that one intersection would operate at a level of service "E" and one intersection at level of service "F" within the "Future traffic, with project" scenario for either the AM or PM peak hour. The two intersections operating at level of service "E" or "F" associated with the "future traffic, with project" scenario: V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-111 O o Ynez Road/Winchester Road (Level of Service "E"). o Jefferson Avenue/4Vinchester Road (Level of Service "F"). The ICU analysis indicates that conditions with the project would generally result in slightly worse conditions (ICU values) at the major intersections which aze in close proximity to the project. Intersections further away from the project showed little or in some cases some improvement in ICU values and service levels with the project traffic added to the regional circulation system. Future Traffic Levels -With Proiect, Without Temecula Regional Center Within this scenario, future traffic levels with the Campos Verdes project but without development of the Temecula Regional Center and its respective roadways are analyzed. Off-site roadway segments would operate at a level of service "C" with the exception of the four roadway segments listed below: o Winchester Road between.°I-15 and Ynez Road -Level of Service E/F; and o Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek (Level of Service "D"). O o Date Street between Jefferson Avenue and Business Pazk Street (Level of Service ..D..). o Washington Avenue between Date Street and Cherry Street (Level of Service "D"). As indicated in Table XIV, Intersection Capacity Utilization for the study area indicate that one intersection would operate at level of service "D", one intersection at level of service "E" and one intersection at level of service "F". These three intersections operating at level of service "D" are listed below: o Ynez Road at Winchester Road (Level of Service "E"); Jefferson Avenue at Winchester Road (Level of Service "F"); and o Northbound I-15 Ramps/Winchester Road (Level of Service "D"). As shown in Table XIV, the Winchester RoadlYnez Road intersection would still operate at service level "E" conditions during the AM peak hour for the scenario "with project and with the Regional Center". The ICU value associated with this intersection for the "without the project" scenazio (ICU =0.93) was assessed to be moderately worse than for the "with project" condition (ICU =0.85) and worse than the "with project and without Regional Center" scenario (ICU = 0.83). O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-112 Future Traffic Levels with Additional Improvements O Additional intersection capacity utilization calculations were performed for all intersections found to operate at service level "D" or worse with the project. The analyses indicate that with additional intersections improvements, (see "Mitigation Measures") peak hour service levels could be maintained or improved to "D" or better at all intersections. The project would therefore comply with minimum service level "D" policy for peak-hour intersection in azeas designated as "Heavy Urban" (Category 1) by the County of Riverside. This assumes that all recommended roadway and intersection improvements are implemented (see "Mitigation Measures" below). Several of the recommendations would require an increase in the number of standard travel lanes typically provided for the street classification and also increases in right-of--way requirements. Q general Plan Ytelationship The Campos Verdes project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February, 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources O Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following aze the Land Use Standards of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan relative to circulation: 1. Road Rieht-of-Way and Dedication: Necessary right-of-way dedications shall be made by developers as part of the land division and review process. All road dedications shall relate to the overall existing and proposed street systems of the immediate azea surrounding a proposed development. 2. Roadwav Design: Intensive urban land uses shall be served by streets and highways capable of handling high volumes of commuter and truck traffic. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-113 O Through traffic movements shall be limited to General Plan roads and should avoid streets through residential neighborhoods. Provisions shall be made for highways capable of carrying high volumes of through traffic between major trip generators. 3. Alignment: Curves and roads shall be designed to permit safe movement of vehicular traffic at the road's design speed. 4. Access: All weather access shall be provided to all developed areas. 5. Intersections: All street intersections shall be developed to assure the safe, efficient passage of through traffic and the negotiation of turning movements. 6. On-Site Road Improvements: Private land developments shall be required to provide all on-site road and auxiliary facility improvements necessary to mitigate any development-generated circulation impacts. A review of each proposed land development project shall be undertaken to identify the project impacts to the circulation system and its auxiliary facilities. 7. Off-Site Road Improvements: All developments shall be required to mitigate all project-related significant impacts upon the circulation system on a pro-rata basis. Off-site improvements will be provided by the developer or by other County and O City approved fmancing mechanisms, including State or Federal funds. All identified impacts to the circulation system by proposed land developments shall be mitigated by the developer in conformance to requirements established by the responsible agency. 8. Arterial Highways: Arterial highways shall be identified on a map and improved as azea development and highway needs warrant. Whenever possible, improvements shall be made with financing mechanisms which equally distribute the cost of road improvements among those who will benefit. 9. Collector Streets: Provisions shall be made for a comprehensive, efficient collector road system in developing the site. 10. Circulation Hazards: The circulation system should be designed to avoid or mitigate significant environmental hazards. Adequate measures shall be taken to protect County residents from transportation-generated noise hazards. Increased setbacks, walls, landscaped berms, other sound absorbing barriers or a combination thereof shall be provided. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-114 11. Coneestion Relief/Levels of Service: Private developments which aze projected to O reduce levels of service on existing facilities below acceptable standazds shall be required to provide appropriate mitigation measures. Traffic signals shall be constructed and improved at appropriate intersections. The project responds to General Plan Land Use standards 1 though 11. The project will ensure proper roadway design through dedication and construction of public roads. Through traffic movements will avoid streets through residential neighborhoods. Curves and roads will permit safe movement of vehiculaz traffic at the road's design speed, and intersections will be designed to assure the safe passage of through traffic and the negotiation of movements. Final design and offer of dedication will occur at the land division stage. The circulation system as proposed will provide for all weather access to all portions of the project site. c. ldiitigation 1Vieasures Mitigation measures recommended by the Traffic Engineer are presented in two categories: 1) on-site improvements, 2) off-site improvements and 3) Transportation System Management Actions. On-site roadway improvements are considered those which relate to new proposed roadways within and bordering the Campos Verdes project and existing roadways immediately adjacent to the project. Off-site roadway improvements relate to roadways away from the project which provide regional O circulation to project residents. The developer will be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and on-site improvements as well as a "fair-shaze" amount towazds the implementation of needed off-site improvements. The property owner is a principal participant in the Ynea Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12. On-Site Improvements 1. Key features recommended for the on-site roadway improvements program aze listed below: o Improve Margarita Road as an Arterial roadway along the project frontage. An interim two-lane section of Margarita Road (between Solana Way and Winchester Road) and the related realignment of General Kearny Road shall occur prior to occupation of Phase I of Campos Verdes. Construction of the completed roadway section for Margarita Road shall occur by the fourth quazter of 1995 or prior to occupation of Phase II of Campos Verdes. o Improve General Kearny Road (with proposed realignment at Mazgazita Road) as a Secondary roadway. Construction of the extension/widening of General V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-115 Q Kearny Road from the project site to Nicolas Road shall occur by the fourth quarter of 1996 or prior to 75 percent build-out and occupation of Phase II of Campos Verdes. o Improve Campos Verdes Loop Road as a Collector street except to provide an Industrial Collector street section from Margarita Road to "C" Street. o Improve all other on-site roads as Local Streets. o Provide an access driveway designed to allow "right turn out only" on Margarita Road for the proposed Office Park development. This exit only driveway should be located as far south from General Kearny Road as the site constraints will allow. o Provide a limited access driveway (right-in and right-out) on Margarita Road for the proposed neighborhood commercial center. 2. Provide signals at: o Margarita Road/General Kearny Road; and o Margarita Road/Campos Verdes Loop Road. O Off-Site Improvements 3. Additional "fare-share" participation is warranted in the implementation of some of the identified off-site improvements which are not addressed in the current improvement districts. Recommendations for the basic roadway network configuration, roadway classifications, and number of travel lanes aze illustrated in Figure V-19, Recommended Future Circulation System. These improvements would result in peak- hour service levels of "D" or better at all study area intersections with the exception of Winchester Road/Ynez Road. This intersection with improvements would achieve Level of Service E during the PM peak hour. 4. Recommended off-site improvements which exceed standard improvements included in the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) Circulation Element involve additional improvements to Winchester Road. Winchester Road shall be improved to provide a Modified Urban Arterial section with four eastbound and westbound lanes between I-15 and Ynez Road. Winchester Road shall also be improved to provide three through lanes at the eastbound approach to the Jefferson Avenue intersection. 5. In addition to the identified roadway improvements, the issue of adding an interchange at Date Street should be pursued by all involved public agencies. Increased local and regional support for this improvement could favorably influence State and O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-116 O z ~~ ~U ~, c sU c C 0 IW^ ~ » Z V Y ~ y r V ~ V E ~ 3r g ~ ~ ~ - e 'ct ~ E W_ ~~ ~' z~ ~' o> ~< ~ a ~ ~ ~ s: o ~~ r ~_ G '< i Em v g E s ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ u- as ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~~ 43 § ~g _~~ O ~ g: U E -e ^°~~ 5_ c ~° ~. ~ ~S z~ a << 'J' 3 `< ~? ~ ~s °s 0 Q ~ ~ ow j ~ W N ~00~ \00~~ ^~ O /~ l~q'!/ l`n ~FJ ~i ~ a U 3 E Y~ J o ® N h a a° O /1J/~ N Q U Y \J O Federal policy. Alternative design concepts for the interchange could also be explored which would mitigate concerns relative to the interchange spacing constraints. 6. In addition to the recommended roadway infrastructure improvements the Traffic Engineer also recommends that a number of Transportation Systema Management programs be implemented in the project vicinity and throughout the Southwest Riverside County development azea. The following recommendations aze aimed at the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula with the intent of maximizing future roadway capacities and reducing vehiculaz travel during the critical peak hour periods: o The continued enforcement of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Trip Reduction Plan (for major employers in the area) and o The implementation of public transit services such as: - express transit into and out of the area during the morning and evening commuter peaks; - fixed route local bus service between higher density residential azeas and major activity centers; and - demand responsive transit services such as dial-a-ride for the lower density O and more remote areas. o Promotion of future public transit through the adoption of appropriate planning ordinances which would require special transit oriented design features to be incorporated into future development projects. o The adoption of ordinances which would require larger employers in the area to implement carpool and or vanpool programs. Large employers could also be encouraged to implement staggered work hours or flex time programs for their employees. It should be noted that the implementation of a neighborhood -type retail center proposed as part of the predominantly residential -oriented Campos Verdes project assists in the reduction of the number of off-site shopping trips made by project residents. d. Level of Significance After 1Vlitigation In spite of the mitigation measures noted above, the level of impacts related to circulation and traffic is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIAONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-118 2. ®dATEIIZ L~NID ~EWE)F8 O a. E>~sting Conditions Water The proposed project is located within the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) service area. RCWD relies on local groundwater and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) for water supply. The Metropolitan Water District is the sole water importer agency within the project area. MWD provides imported water for its member agency Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) who in turn provides wholesale water to the Rancho California Water District. The imported water is available to RCWD from the MWD's San Diego Aqueducts. Further, RCWD has an abundant water supply capacity in its underlying groundwater basins within its service area. Currently, four existing wells are located within the project area. These wells would augment the District's underlying groundwater well production system as the primary source of water for this project. According to RCWD staff, water storage for the project site is provided by the existing Norma Marshall Reservoir and the Ace Bowen Reservoir. Sewer O The proposed project is located within the EMWD sewer service azea. Currently, a Sewer Master Plan Study is being prepared by the District to identify the ultimate sewer facilities required within the Winchester Assessment District which the proposed project is a part. The ultimate Sewer Master Plan will involve the construction of two major trunk sewers, the Warm Springs trunk sewer and the Santa Gertrudis trunk sewer, which will convey the collected flows from the Winchester Assessment District to the Temecul¢ Y¢lley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). The proposed 36-inch Warm Springs trunk sewer will be located northwest of the project and the proposed 27- inch, or greater, Santa Gertrudis trunk sewer will run along Santa Gertrudis Creek pazallel to Winchester Road which borders a small northern portion of the project. The existing and proposed sewer improvements within the project aze shown on Figure III-7, Master Sewer Plan. Currently, a 15-inch sewer main runs southerly in Winchester Road continuing easterly to connect to the RCRWRF. The existing treatment capacity of the RCRWRF is 6.25 MGD. In addition, a 10.0 MGD tertiary filtration facility is scheduled to start treating secondary effluent from the RCRWRF in the fall of 1991. The existing 15-inch sewer would provide service to the proposed project. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-119 O Reclaimed Water At present time, there are no reclaimed water facilities to serve the proposed project. EMWD is currently in the process of planning a backbone reclaimed water system throughout the District which may include a major line in Winchester Road. EMWD Ordinance No. 68, adopted in October of 1989, describes the District's policy regazding reclaimed water use. EMWD may require the project to construct reclaimed water lines on-site so that when the regional system is complete, the proejct can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for irrigation. b. Project %mpacts/General Plan IBelationslup Water Development of the Campos Verdes project will increase the demand on water service ,in the area. The average water demand for the project is estimated to be 1.53 MGD based upon 200 gallons per person per dwelling unit (3.0 persons per d.u.), 3,000 gallons per acre per day for commercial use, 3,800 gallons per acre per day of pazk/open space, and a fire flow of 5,000 gallons per minute for a three hour duration with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. Utilizing a peaking factor of 3, the estimated peak day demand for the project would be 4.59 MGD. O Water can be supplied to the Campos Verdes project by connecting to the existing 16" water main within Winchester Road and to the existing 16" water line within Calle Ping Colada. The Campos Verdes project will be required to construct a 24" line within the proposed Margarita Road right-of--way and relocate the existing waterline within General Kearny Road into the new road alignment. In addition to these improvements, a minimum 8" Zooped network will be required to serve the entire site. (See Figure III-6, Master Water Plan). Additionally, an 8" water line exists in Sanderling Way. This main could serve a section of the western portion of the project or be looped into the system mentioned above. As previously mentioned, water storage for the site is provided by the existing Norma Mazahall and the Ace Bowen Reservoirs. Sewer The estimated average day demand for sewage generated by the project is estimated at .326 MGD based on 100 gallons per day per person per dwelling unit and 3,000 gallons per acre per day for commercial use. Utilizing a peaking factor of 2.5, the peak day demand is estimated at .816 MGD. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-120 According to the Eastern Municipal Water District the entire site can be provided sewer O service by connecting 8" and 12" branches to the existing 15" gravity sewer Iocated in Winchester Road. (See Figure III-7, Sewer Plan). Additionally, an 8" gravity sewer line exists in Sanderling Way. This sewer line could be extended to serve a section of the western portion of the site. Reclaimed Water The areas most likely to utilize reclaimed water are parka and greenbelts. While not using reclaimed water extensively at this time, the possibility exists of providing reclaimed water service for the existing Rancho California Golf Course located north of the project. This proposed reclaimed water system could also provide service to the Campos Verdes site. The project will comply with EMWD requirements for installation of on-site reclaimed water lines. QAeneral Rlan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include O the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Public Facilities and Services Element of the Comprehensive General Plan set forth the following Land Use Standards relative to water and sewer: 1. Category II Development -must be located within special districts authorized to provide water and sewer service. A Category II development must use a district water system and district sewer system. The development proponent must show that adequate water and sewer facilities, water resources availability and sewer treatment plant capacity will exist to meet the demands of the development. Commitments for adequate and available water and sewer service must be confirmed by the special districts. 2. Water Use for Landscanin~ -Irrigation systems shall be properly designed, installed, operated and maintained to prevent the waste of water. Vegetation which uses less water will be encouraged for landscaping purposes. 3. Wastewater Reuse -Where adequately treated wastewater is available it shall be incorporated into new development water plans for such things as irrigation for landscaping, golf courses, agriculture, and man-made lakes and ponds. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-121 O The Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes Category II Urban Land Uses and, as such, must be located within special districts authorized to provide water and sewer service. In accordance with this requirement, the project is located within the Rancho California Water District for water service and the Eastern Municipal Water District for sewer service. In accordance with Land Use Standards for water use relative to landscaping, irrigation systems shall be properly designed, installed, operated and maintained to prevent the waste of water. Drought resistant vegetation will be utilized for landscaping purposes. Additionally, further studies will be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed water on-site for irrigation demands. c. 1Vditigation 1Vgeasures 1. All lines will be designed per the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the Rancho California Water District's (RCWD) requirements. The infrastructural system will be installed to the requirements of EMWD and RCWD. 2. Water and sewer disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the Riverside County Health Department. O 3. Assurance for provision of adequate water and wastewater service is required prior to approval of a subdivision map, in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act. 4. In addition, the following State Laws require water efficient plumbing fixtures in structures to minimize water use: o Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. o Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(£) (ApplianceEfficiency Standazds) establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all -- new showerheads, lavatory faucets, etc. o Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1601(b) (ApplianceEfficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations. o Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2-530?(b) (California Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings) prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standazds. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VEKDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-122 o ZStle 24, California Administrative Code Section 2-5452 (i) and (j) address pipe O insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied. o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public facilities be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit the flow of hot water. d. Level of Significance After RSitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to water and sewer has been reduced to an insignificant level. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R» NO. 348 V-123 O 3. FIRE SERVICES a. Effisting Conditions The Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, provides fire protection to the project area. The station serving the project site is the North Temecula Station #73, located at 27415 Enterprise Circle West, equipped with one 1250 GPM pumper, two full time (24 hour) fire fighters, augmented by volunteers. The Temecula Station #12 located at 28330 Mercedes Street will act as a secondary station. This station is equipped with two 1250 GPM pumpers, two full time firefighters (the second firefighter is an augmentation of the basic level of service) who work weekdays to provide coverage during low volunteer response times augmented by ten to fifteen paid call (volunteer) firefighters. The Fire Department responds to medical aid calls for emergency first aid and rescue. Station #12 responded to approximately 5 emergency first aid and rescue calls per day in 1991, while Station #73 responded to approximately 3 emergency first aid and rescue calls per day in 1991. Paramedic service and transportation in the area is provided by the Goodhew Ambulance Company headquartered in the City of Riverside, located at 1044 East LaCadena. Ambulances responding to calls from Stations #12 and #73 are generally dispatched out of Murrieta or the City of Temecula. O b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in the demand for fire protection services. Project impacts are generally due to the increased number of emergency or public service calls generated by additional residential and commercial development. According to Fire Department Staff, the Fire Protection Master Plan is divided into four categories by response time. The need for additional firefighters, equipment, and/or improvements associated with new development is based upon into which category a project falls. The Fire Department reviews land use plans determining if new stations are needed based upon the number of dwelling units and square footage of commercial use proposed by a project. According to Michael Gray, Deputy Fire Marshall, the Campos Verdes Specific Plan lies within Category II (Urban). The Fire Protection Master Plan standard for Category II development requires a primary station within three miles of the proposed project site with a secondary or backup station within eight miles of the proposed project site to provide the necessary three fire engines for a structural fire alarm. The Fire Department has indicated that the existing facilities (Stations #12 and #73) can adequately provide Category II fire protection to the project site in conformance with the Fire Protection Master Plan. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-124 The project applicant will be required to pazticipate in fu'e protection measures O necessary to adequately protect the project site. (See Mitigation Measures). Depending upon Fire Department need, a portion of the impacts associated with capital improvements or one-time costs such as land, buildings, and equipment will be mitigated by developer participation in the Fire Protection Mitigation Program. The annual costs necessary for an increased level of service aze only partially offset by the additional County structure tax and would require an increase in the Fire Department's annual operating budget. The project site currently has an ISO (Insurance Service Office) rating of "9", (undeveloped land) however, this rating will be reduced to a "6" (Fire Department Rating) as development (streets and domestic water) occurs. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the Mazch 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the azea within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standazd land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. O The following Land Use Standards -Fire Services of the Public Facilities and Service Element of the Comprehensive General Plan aze applicable to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan: 1. Fire Protection -All new developments must have an adequate level of fire protection. Applicable development standards as well as any additional fire protection and prevention measures deemed necessary by the County shall be implemented. In accordance with County standards, an adequate level of fire protection will be provided from the existing stations (#73 and #12) in the area. 2. Service Commitments -Concurrent with the submittal of Category I, II or V project applications, fire protection service commitments, including fiscal commitments, will be evaluated in order to confirm that fire protection services will be adequate for the project. As the Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes a Category II project, it will be subject to evaluation for adequacy of fire protection services. 3. Fire Facilities Improvements - As determined by the County Fire Department Category I, II and V projects may be required to contribute to the improvement of fire protection services such as dedication of site(s), construction of new stations(s) or upgrading of existing station(s), provision of new equipment or upgrading of existing V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-125 O equipment. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be required to participate in the fire protection impact mitigation program (See "Mitigation Measures"). 4. Fire Response Times - Category I, II and V projects shall have a fire response time by emergency fire equipment of no greater than five minutes. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan is within an acceptable time/travel distance from existing fire stations. c. Mitigation Measures 1. The project is within the "State Responsibility Area" as defined by the California Administrative Code. This designation requires all buildings to have fire retardant roofing material. 2. The project developer shall participate in the existing Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Program ($400.00 per dwelling unit and $.25 per squaze foot for commercial/industrial) to be used for the purchase of land in order to build and equip fire stations when necessary as development occurs. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation In spite of the mitigation measures noted above, the level of impacts related to fire services is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a O Statement of Overriding Considerations. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-126 4. s13PRIPF SERVICES O a. E~sting Conditions The project site is within the service boundaries of the Riverside County Sheriff Department. The Sheriff's Department currently serves an area of 305.2 square aisles. The agency has a staff totaling 831 sworn officers, 587 patrol officers, 160 patrol cars, and 8 police stations. The County Sheriffs Department operates a substation within the City of Temecula and has recently relocated from 43172 Business Park Drive to the newly completed Southwest Justice Center located at 30755-A Auld Road northeast of the proposed project. According to the Sheriffs Department, to maintain adequate protection the desirable officer/resident ratio is 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 population, 1 civilian personnel per 7 sworn officers, and 1 patrol vehicle per 3 sworn officers. According to Chief of Police, Rick Sayre, response time to any location within the City limits range from under six minutes for emergency, life threatening calls to fifteen to twenty minutes for non-emergency calls. These estimates also vary depending upon the location of any patrol vehicles at the time of the call. The Department uses current population and development information to calculate O future population projections with law enforcement needs so that the Department remains current with County growth. Future personnel and equipment needs are met through fund allocation by the County Board of Supervisors in their yearly budget. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes 850 residential units, 13.5 acres of commercial use, and 10.4 acres of commercial/office use. The increase in population will incrementally increase criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, assaults, and vandalism. As the population and use of an azea increases, additional financing of equipment and manpower needs are required to meet the increased demand for adequate police protection. The Riverside County Sheriffs Department utilizes a generation factor of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit (as opposed to the 2.59 persons per unit factor utilized throughout this document). The Campos Verdes Specific Plan could therefore generate, according to this higher factor, a population of approximately 3,400 people. Utilizing the desirable criteria of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, 1 civilian personnel per 7 sworn officers, and 1 patrol car per 3 sworn officers; project development could V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-127 O result in the need for 5.1 sworn officers, .72 civilian personnel, and 1.7 patrol cars at project buildout. Adequate police protection will be guaranteed through collection of taxes and subsequent expenditures by the County Boazd of Supervisors. (See Mitigation Measures) General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the Mazch 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standazd land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following Land Use Standards -Sheriff Service of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan is applicable to the project site: 1. Police Protection and Facilities Adequacy -The design of Category II projects will O be reviewed for adequate safeguazds for crime prevention. In accordance with the Land Use Standards for Sheriff Services, crime prevention policies designated by the Sheriff's Department for the proposed Category II land uses will be followed. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Provision of police protection will be guaranteed through the collection of taxes and subsequent expenditures by the County Board of Supervisors. 2. For the security and safety of future residents, the applicant shall incorporate the following design concepts within each planning area: a) Circulation systems will be designed to provide pedestrians, vehicles and police patrols with a direct, safe and efficient network of transportation; b) Streets, walkways and bikeways will be illuminated in order to provide better visibility; c) Doors and windows shall be visible from the street and between buildings with the intention of discouraging the criminal element; O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-128 d) The fencing height and material utilized is intended to discourage climbing O or scaling in order to gain access of an area; and e) The number identification system shall be visible and readily apparent on buildings and residences in order for emergency response agencies to reach their destination quickly. d. Level of Significance After Idlitigation In spite of the mitigation measures noted above, level of impacts related to sheriff services is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-129 O s. ~C~®®Ls a. E>~sting Conditions The project site lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District for Grades K-12. Three elementary schools are in the project vicinity, these include; a) Rancho Elementary School (K-5), located at 31530 La Serena Way; b) Joan F. Sparkman Elementary School (K-5), located at 32225 Pio Pico Road; and c) Vail Elementary School (K-5), located at 29915 Mira Loma. The project site is also served by the Temecula Middle School (6-8), located at 42705 Meadows Parkway and Margarita Middle School (6-8), located at 30600 Margarita Road. All schools are operating near or above capacity. Temecula Valley Unified School District indicated that, due to the rapid rate of development in the area, the elementary and middle schools are growing at a rate of approximately 30% per year. The Temecula Valley High School, located at 31555 Rancho Vista Road serves students in grades 9-12. Permanent building capacity is 1,928 students with a current enrollment of over 2,200 students. Due to development trends in the area the high school enrollment could potentially increase as much as 12 - 25% per year. Capacity for the high school as well as elementary and middle schools is currently provided by the use of relocatable classrooms. O According to the District's "5 Year Growth Plan", by the yeaz 1992, the use of an additional 26 portable classrooms is anticipated throughout the District as well as the construction of at least nine new elementary schools. b. Project %mpacts/iAeneral Plan Relationship The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes a generation factor of .36 students per dwelling unit for single family dwellings and .18 students per dwelling unit for high density dwelling units for grades K-5 and .20 students per single family dwelling and .10 students per high density dwelling unit for grades 6-8. Utilizing these factors, development of the 850 dwelling units which consists of 206 single-family units and 644 multi-family (high density) units proposed by the Campos Verdes Specific Plan could generate an estimated 190 students in grades K-5 and 105 students in grades 6-8. Grades 9-12 utilize a generation factor of .24 students per single family dwelling unit and .12 students per high density dwelling unit, resulting in an estimated 127 high school students generated by the project potentially bringing the estimated total number of students generated by the project to 422. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-130 Since Campos Verdes proposes no school sites the estimated 422 students generated by O project development would have to attend school off-site. As previously mentioned the District's schools are all operating near or above capacity. The additional students will increase the demand upon an already impacted District. Depending upon the need of the District, the impact of these additional students may be mitigated by the applicant participating in site dedication, developer agreements and/or payment of fees. QReneral Plan Relationslup The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the Mazch 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan" (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Mapa, etc.). Such an approach is a standazd land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following Land Use Standards -Schools aze applicable to the project site: 1. Service and Facilities Adequacy -Projects will be evaluated to determine the impact they will have on school services and facilities. 2. Impacted Schools -Projects in school districts which are already impacted or aze O over capacity must make arrangements with the school districts to mitigate the additional effects of the project. These arrangements may include site dedication and/or developer agreements. In accordance with the above standards the Campos Verdes Specific Plan is being planned to conform with the Land Use Standards, in that the applicant is working with the Temecula Unified School District to mitigate the student impact on the district as a result of project development. o. Rh[itigation P/tessures 1. The applicant shall be required to pay school impact mitigation fees or fund school site acquisition and/or facility construction. A combination of school impact mitigation fees and other funding methods, including the formation of a Mello-Roos District, may be negotiated with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. These school impact mitigation fees may not exceed the State-mandated maximum amounts of $1.58 per squaze foot of residential space and $.26 per square foot of commercial space. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 .I.R. NO. 348 V-131 O 2. The project applicant shall enter into a binding agreement with the Temecula Unified School District to insure the provision of adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy. d. II.evel of Significance after 1Vditigation In spite of the mitigation measures noted above, level of impacts related to schools is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Ovemding Considerations. O O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-132 6. PARIS A1VID RECRRATI®1V O a. E~sting Conditions The project azea is served by several regional recreational facilities offering a variety of activities. These include Lake Skinner, Lake Elsinore and Lake Perris. A Riverside County regional park is located at Lake Skinner while the lake itself is a Metropolitan Water District facility. Lake Skinner, approximately 6 miles northeast of the site is a 6,040 acre County park which offers camping, fishing, hiking, equestrian trails, picnicking, etc. Lake Elsinore located 14 miles northwest of the project encompasses approximately 3,000 acres, including the lake itself and day use pazks. This lake offers several water sport activities such as skiing, swimming, boating and fishing. The State issues Day Use Tickets of $4.00 per vehicle with 2 people in the vehicle, more than 2 people is an additional $.50 per person. Use of the lake is not totally regulated by the State due to the private property which adjoins the lake. Located approximately 22 miles to the north of the project is the Lake Perris State Recreation Area (SRA) totaling 8,200 acres. This SRA also provides a variety of water sport activities along with bicycling, horseback riding, rock climbing and overnight camping. The lake has a water surface area of 2,318 acres with nine acres of shoreline. Perris Dam, located at the west end of the lake, is 128 feet high and 2.2 miles long. O The Cleveland National Forest, encompassing the Santa Ana Mountains, lies to the west of the project site, and a portion of the San Bernardino National Forest is located to the east. These areas provide equestrian, camping and hiking activities. Local recreational facilities include community parks in Elsinore and Rancho California and recreational amenities on local school grounds. Additionally, the Bear Creek Village, located approximately 6 miles west of the project site includes a private 18-hole, 200 acre championship style golf course, as well as swimming and tennis facilities, however, the Bear Creek facilities are not available to the general public. There is an equestrian network located along Murrieta Creek which is publicly available, and serves as a link in the equestrian network extending throughout the entire southwest territory of Riverside County. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Implementation of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will increase the demand for park and recreational facilities. Utilizing the County factor of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit approximately 2,201 people are estimated to be generated at project buildout. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-133 O The Riverside County Pazks Department applies a standard of one acre of developed pazk land within the project boundary per 1,000 population. The project is also required to meet the State Quimby Act requirement. The State Quimby Act was established by the California Legislature for the purpose of preserving open space and providing park facilities for California's growing communities. The Quimby Act allows local agencies to establish ordinances requiring residential subdivisions to provide land or in-lieu of fees for park and recreation purposes. The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) utilizes a factor of five acres of parkland per 1,000 in population. In order to satisfy the County Parks Department standards 2.2 acres of developed park land would be required. In order to satisfy the Quimby Act requirement established by TCSD approximately 11 acres of parkland would be required. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes a 13.5 acre combination patazk/drainage basin in Planning Area 1 along the southern boundary of the project. This azea will provide a much needed community pazk and act as a detention basin protecting adjacent land uses during a 100- year storm. It is anticipated that the park will provide both active and passive recreational opportunities and may include softball/soccer fields, on-site pazking, tot lots, picnic areas, etc. The active recreational facilities proposed (playing fields) within the actual floodplain azea aze facilities which are specifically designed to withstand the impact of standing water resulting from heavy rainstorms. No special requirements exist to inhibit the use of playground equipment within the detention basin area. This proposed acreage adequately meets the requirements for both the City of Temecula and O the Quimby Act. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan:' (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Park and Recreation -Land Use Standards of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Comprehensive General Plan contains the following standards applicable to the project: 1. Recreation Onnortunities -Recreation opportunities for residents and visitors shall be developed and maintained throughout Riverside County. O V. GENERAL PLANJENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-134 2. Recreational Facilities -Residential Category I and II projects will be reviewed for O adequate recreational facilities. Mitigation measures may be required to ensure adequate future recreational opportunities. 3. Park Desien -Park facilities shall be designed to be more accessible to the handicapped, i.e. handicapped pazking spaces, ramped curbing and specially designed rest facilities,etc. 4. Sitine - Neighborhood and Community Parks -The responsibility for detailed planning programm;ng for neighborhood and community pazks belongs to those public agencies, such as local park districts and County Service Areas (GSA's) which provide neighborhood and community park facilities and services. These public agencies will be responsible for the submission of community park and recreation plans to the County for review and adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Upon adoption by resolution by the Boazd of Supervisors of the community park and recreation plan, as submitted by the public agency, those policies and standards for development of neighborhood and community parks contained within the adopted community park and recreation plan will become the adopted policies and standards of the City for neighborhood and community pazk development within the plan area. Local parks shall provide recreational uses in proximity to the homes of County residents in contrast to regional facilities which serve the entire County. Where possible, O neighborhood pazks shall generally serve a population of 2,000 to 5,000 or approximately the same population and area served by an elementary school. However, where not economically feasible, larger populations may be served. Neighborhood pazks may consist of any of the following types of recreation: open azeas for passive recreation and relaxation, active sports areas for field games such as baseball and football and court games such as basketball and volleyball, or provide for a neighborhood center for neighborhood groups such a Boy(Girl Scouts, senior citizen groups, craft classes, etc. Optimally, the service radius for a neighborhood pazk should be between 1/4 and 3/8 of a mile, but may be extended where pazk facilities can be located to take advantage of better natural setting and public access characteristics within the neighborhood. 5. Desien -Neighborhood and Community Parks -All parks should be situated and designed to the extent feasible so as to minimize vandalism, maximize access bylaw and emergency vehicles, and allow for an effective survey bylaw enforcement patrol officers. All parks and open space should be designed so as to complement the special character of a community or neighborhood. Individual design themes for each park or recreation area should be encouraged. However, local pazks should complement other existing and planned park and recreation facilities in the vicinity. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFI PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-135 O Play areas should be surrounded by various barriers to protect its occupants from neazby hazards, such as street traffic, bodies of water, as well as protecting adjacent land uses from pazk activities. Such barriers might be composed of fences, berms, tree rows, or open space. As the Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes Category II Land Uses, the project will be reviewed for adequate recreation facilities. The project proposes to develop park and recreational facilities to meet both City and State Quimby Act requirements. c. Mitigation Measures 1. The project applicant shall provide adequate park acreage necessary to satisfy the TCSD and State Quimby Act local pazk requirements. 2. Maintenance of the park/detention basin will be the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District or the Homeowners Association. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to parks and recreation has been reduced to an insignificant level. O O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 34S V-136 ~. vT%L%T%>FS O a. Effisting Conditions The project lies within the service area of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE), the Southern California Gas Company and the General Telephone Company (GTE). The Southern California Gas Company has an existing gas main located east of I-15, north of Winchester Road and south of Elm Street and Warm Springs Creek. The Gas Company has indicated that distribution lines could be extended from this main to serve the project without significant impact. SCE has an existing 12 KV underground line within the project area located adjacent to Ynez Road. Although General Telephone has no existing lines within the project boundaries they have indicated their ability to serve the site. b. Project %mpacts/General P%an Relationship Development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in the construction of 850 residential dwelling units and approximately 364,379 square feet of commercial and commercial/office use (This square footage total is based upon an assumed floor to area ratio of 35°Jo coverage. This lot coverage ratio has been selected in order to provide an assessment of maximum probable "worst-case" impacts.) Shown below is the estimated electrical demand at ultimate project build-out based upon SCE's demand factors. (See Section V.C.6., Climate and Air Quality, for additional detail on electrical demand.) O ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL USAGE Residential 850 D.U. X 6,081 kwh unit/yr. = 5,168,850 kwh/yr. Commercial:Commercial/Office 364,379 sq.ft. X 8.8 kwh sq.ft./yr. = 3.206.535 kwh/yr. Total = 8,375,385 kwh/yr. Provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply and the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds the Southern California Edison Company's estimates, it is anticipated that electrical requirements will be met over the next several years. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-137 O Project implementation will also result in an increased demand for natural gas. The primary use of natural gas by the project will be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating and/or air conditioning. The Southern California Gas Company has indicated that they can provide service to Campos Verdes in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. Shown below is the estimated demand for natural gas at ultimate project build-out based upon the Southern California Gas Company's demand factors. (See Section C.6., Climate and Air Quality for additional detail on demand for natural gas.) ESTIMATED NATURAL GAS USAGE Residential Single-Family 206 D.U. X 6,665 cubic feet/month = 1,372,990 c.f./mo. Multi-Family 644 D.U. X 4,105 cubic feet/month = 2,643,620 c.f./mo. O Commercial;Commercial/Office 364,379 sq.ft. X 2.0 cubic feet/month = 728.758 c.f./mo. Total = 4,745,368 c.f./mo. Similar to electricity, the Energy Commission Report noted "Southern California's gas supply will be sufficient through the late 1990's to meet residential, commercial, industrial and some electric utilizing generation'. While the proposed project will place additional demand upon the telephone services, these demands are well within the parameters of the General Telephone Company. General Telephone will need 6-12 months notice prior to any major construction beginning on the project. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-138 use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project O in terms of the Mazch 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan:' (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazazds and Resources Maps, Public Fatalities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Utility Land Use Standards of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan do not apply to this Specific Plan. c. 1M[itigation iNteasures The Southern California Edison Company and Southern California Gas Company encourage all customers to learn and utilize the programs developed by these companies respectively to conserve energy; included among them aze such concepts as daylighting and off-peak cooling. In addition, the following specific mitigations are recommended: 1. Development plans will be provided to Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company and General Telephone as they become available in order to facilitate engineering, design and construction of improvements necessary to provide electrical, natural gas and telephone service to the project site. 2. The applicant will comply with guidelines provided by the Southern California Gas Company in regard to easement restriction, construction guidelines, protection of O pipeline easement and potential amendments to right-of--way in the areas of any existing Gas Company easements. 3. Building energy conservation for both residential and commercial structures will be largely achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the Energy Conservation Code. Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2-5307 (b) is the California Energy Conservation Standard for New Buildings which prohibits the installation of factures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standazds. Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5452 (i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment of fixtures. Title 20, California Administrative Gode Sections 1604 (f) and 1601 (b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rates of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non-conforming fixtures. d. Level of Significance After 1Vlitigation In spite of the mitigation measures noted above, level of impacts related to utilities is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. - V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-139 o ~. S®>~~~AS~>E a. E~sting Conditions According to the County of Riverside Waste Management Department, the project lies within the service area of the Double Butte Landfill. However, Double Butte is approaching capacity and is estimated to be closed in early 1994. The County has chosen a system approach to meet Riverside County's facility needs. Currently, two scenarios are being considered depending on the future of the Double Butte Landfill. Scenario #1 assumes that when Double Butte Landfill is closed, a materials recovery facility (MRF), will be sited in the Mid-County Facility Service Area (approximately coinciding with the present Double Butte Landfill Regional Service Area). Solid wastes generated within the service area will be sent to the Mid-County MRF to be processed, with the residual wastes being sent to Lamb Canyon Landfill for disposal. Scenario #2 assumes that when Double Butte Landfill is closed, the wastes will be handled by neighboring facility service areas, such as the Moreno Valley and Lamb Canyon Service Areas. In this scenario, Mid-County is not included as a separate facility service area. Given the imminent closure of the Double Butte site, the proposed project will most O likely utilize the Lamb Canyon Landfill for disposal of solid waste generated within its boundazies. However, the waste generated by the proposed project could be processed either in the Mid-County MRF and the residue transported to and landfilled at Lamb Canyon, or in the Lamb Canyon MRF, depending on which scenazio of the County's facility system is chosen. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road, northeast of the project site. This landfill encompasses 788-acres and serves a regional area of 515 square miles. Lamb Canyon has a permitted annual capacity of 682,000 tons with the average daily capacity of the second quazter of 1991 being 456 tons. The total capacity of the landfill is 8 million tons with an approximate remaining capacity for the landfill (as of the end of 1990) being 6,880,000 tons. As of the end of 1990, approximately 1,220,000 tons of waste had been disposed of in the landfill. The estimated lifespan of the Lamb Canyon Landfill is eighteen years from the beginning of 1991. This projection is based on a growth study by linear regression which has accounted for the diverted wastes from Double Butte and Mead Valley Landfalls after their closures. This estimate is considered conservative as the effects of recycling of materials on the lifespan of the landfill are not accounted for in the projection. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-140 According to County of Riverside Waste Management staff, as of January 1, 1991, a O waste generation rate of 1.75 tons per person per yeaz is utilized for the City of Temecula. The project is located within Permit Area II, waste collection services forthis area are provided by Canyon Lake Disposal, Suburban Disposal, CR&R, Waste Management of Inland Valley, and Jess Rodriguez Disposal Co. In addition, the recently passed legislation, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (A.B. 939, Statutes of 1989, Chapter 1095), which became law in January of 1990 requires all cities and counties to develop a waste stream source reduction and recycling plan by July 1, 1991. The Bill requires landfill waste streams to be reduced 25% by 1995 and 50% by the yeaz 2000. b. Project Impacts/GFeneral Plan Relationship Development of the proposed project will increase the amount of solid waste generated in the region, which in turn will increase the demand upon services of waste haulers in the project area. Utilizing the Solid Waste Management Plan's generation rate of 1.75 tons per person per yeaz for the City of Temecula combined with the dwelling unit occupancy generation factor of 2.59, the proposed project could generate approximately 3,854 tons of residential solid waste per year. The County Waste Management Department believes that efforts made towazd waste O reduction and recycling will reduce the quantity of waste disposal and lower future annual percentage increases in daily per capita waste generation. The substantial benefits of recycling relate to the savings in energy and natural resources due to recycling. The energy and materials that go into producing new materials are substantially greater than that required for recycling materials. The County Waste Management District recommends that the Campos Verdes Specific Plan include methods to reduce the quantity of waste being landfilled, including proper site design for the storage of recyclables sepazated for pick-up. Implementation of a waste disposal strategy for the proposed project can assist Riverside County in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act by developing feasible waste programs that encourage source reduction, recycling, and composting. In order to aid Riverside County in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, it is anticipated that the project will work with future contract refuse haulers to implement recycling and waste reduction programs for residential, commercial, and industrial wastes. Further, it is anticipated that the project will work with its permitted refuse hauler to proceed with curbside collection of recyclable products on a common schedule set forth in County Resolution No. 90-402. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-141 Queneral Plan Relationship O The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. Two Land Use Standards from the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Comprehensive General Plan relative to solid waste are applicable to the Specific Plan. 1. Solid Waste Adequacy -Sufficient solid waste disposal capacity and life expectancy should exist or be planned within a reasonable distance of the project site to accommodate the needs of the development, consistent with the Solid Waste Management Plan. 2. Commercial/Industrial -All Community and Regional Centers along with Light, Medium, Heavy Industrial and Industrial park developments shall have sufficient existing or planned solid waste collection services, capacity and life expectancy available for the development, consistent with the Solid Waste Management Plan. O The proposed project is in conformance with the Land Use Standards relative to Solid Waste Adequacy and Commercial/Industrial Use, as sufficient solid waste disposal capacity is currently available at the Double Butte Landfill and the Lamb Canyon Landfill. Additionally, upon completion, the new facility anticipated for the Double Butte site would effectively service the now existing Double Butte landfill service area. c. Mitigation Measures The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes programs to reduce the quantities of waste being sent to landfills. The developer shall participate in these programs which include source reduction, separation of recoverables, composting and high technology resource recovery. The County encourages the general public, schools and businesses to learn and utilize information regarding recycling and the use of recycled materials. The implementation of these programs can aid in the reduction of solid waste generation associated with new development which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. The County is required to address the recently passed legislation, the integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (A.B. 939, Statues of 1989, Chapter 1095) which became law in January of 1990 requiring all cities and counties to develop a waste stream reduction plan by July 1, 1991. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-142 Assembly Bill 939 requires landfill waste streams to be reduced 25% by 1995 and 50°k by the yeaz 2000. Therefore, the County is encouraging. large projects and other municipalities to implement methods for inclusion of separate and enlarged trash O enclosures to store recycled materials (glass, newspaper, aluminum, etc.) particularly within multi-family and commercial projects. Detailed project design shall include provision for several facilities within proposed multi-family and commercial uses. In addition, the following specific mitigations are recommended: 1. The project applicant shall work with the County Waste Management District and participate in efforts to achieve the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act. Additionally, the proposed permitted refuse hauler to the project site shall be advised of the efforts the developer will be pursuing relating to recycling and waste reduction (i.e. curbside recycling, buy back centers, etc.). 2. A curb-side recycling program shall be provided, in accordance with any existing City of Temecula curb-side recycling program. The developer shall participate in any established City-wide program to reduce solid waste generation. The elements of this program may include: a) Developing and distributing brochures on residential and commercial recycling, residential and commercial source reduction, waste management issues, the importance of using recycled goods, and litter control; b) Development of curriculum guides and kits in cooperation with the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley Unified School District; O c) Production of video programs which can be shown on local cable television stations in the project area; d) Pursue an environmental labelling program at local grocery stores, liquor stores, etc. which would educate consumers in recycling of packaging and other consumer goods; e) Pursue a recycled products awareness campaign which would commend businesses which use recycled products. This program could issue stickers to businesses that use recycled products to display in their windows; and f) Develop a library of media production on recycling and source reduction which can be borrowed by various citizen groups, agencies, and schools within the City of Temecula. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to solid waste has been reduced to an insigificant level. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-143 O 9. LIBRARIES a. E~sting Conditions The project area is served by the Riverside City/County Public Library System. The Temecula branch has been recently relocated from the 1,900 square foot facility at 27533 Ynez Road to the newly constructed 15,000 square foot library facility Iocated at 4100 County Center Drive adjacent to the Walt Abraham Administrative Center. This new facility houses a collection of approximately 51,900 volumes and currently serves an estimated population of 59,000. Library staff has indicated that the library's current level of serve has been recognized as substantially inadequate and has declined during the last decade due to the impact of rapid population growth throughout the entire County. Estimates of developer fees and ongoing operations costs (as noted below) have been calculated for both the current (inadequate) level of service as well as for the desired level of service. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will increase the area's population by approximately 2,202 people (2.59 persons per dwelling unit), and therefore, overall community demand for library services. This increase in population will require an O increase in funding to the City/County Library to maintain even the current level of service which has been recognized as inadequate due to the impact of rapid population growth throughout the County. Utilizing the library's current facility and collections fee (one-time fee) of $381 per residential unit for the current level of service and $401 per residential unit for the desired level of service, project development would result in additional funding in the amounts of $323,850 (current level of service) or $340,850 (desired level). According to the library staff the annual on-going costs associated with project development are estimated to be $24,993 for the current level of service or $40,253 for the desired level of service. This disparity between costs for current levels of service and desired service levels is indicative of the level of service impacts being experienced by the Library System. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-144 Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning O practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Comprehensive General Plan contains no Land Use Standards for library facilities and service. However, in order to provide adequate library facilities and services consistent with community needs the County can assist in providing library facilities through the provision of development and population information for long range library master plans developed by the City and County Library System. c. Mitigation Measures Impacts to existing library facilities shall be partially mitigated by the applicant participating in the assessment of the current library facilities and collections fee ($381 per d.u. for current level of service and $401 per d.u. for desired level of service) at the time of development as well as the determination that the projects estimated assessed valuation will provide at least $24,993 per yeaz to the Library District to finance on- going expenses at the current level of service, or $40,253 per year for the desired level of service. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation In spite of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to librazies is considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a O Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-145 O lo. >r~AI.T~ s1JRVICI';s a. E~sting Conditions The proposed project lies within the service pazameters of several health care facilities. The closest facility to the project site is the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center located in Wildomaz at Interstate 15 and Clinton Keith Road. This facility is a fully accredited hospital offering 62 medical beds and 24-hour emergency service. Other facilities in the area include the Christian Hospital Medical Center, (36 beds) located at 2224 Ruby Drive in Perris. This facility provides 24-hour emergency room, intensive care unit, complete inpatient/outpatient care, lifeline emergency response center, etc. The Menifee Valley Medical Center is nearby located at 28400 McCall Boulevard in Sun City. This facility offers full service acute care that includes 72 medical/surgical beds, 12 of these aze designated as special cardiac telemetry, another 12 beds are located in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and Cardiac Care Units (CCU). The top floor is designed to allow for 30 additional beds as the need arises. Services include a 24-hour emergency room, radiology, laboratory, pharmacy, inpatient/ outpatient surgery, respiratory services and rehabilitation. Also serving the area is the fully accredited Riverside Community Hospital and Riverside General Hospital University Medical Center. Each of these facilities offers 24-hour emergency room and trauma centers. Additionally, the Hemet Valley Hospital (242 beds) is within close proximity of O the project area. Several private care facilities are available in the City of Riverside and surrounding areas to meet the needs of project residents. As indicated in Section V.D.3, Fire Services, the project lies within the service area of the Riverside County Fire Department for emergency medical care. Pazamedic service and transportation are provided by the Goodhew Ambulance Company headquartered in the City of Riverside, located at 1044 East La Cadena. Ambulances responding to calls from the fire stations serving the project area are dispatched out of Murrieta or Temecula, depending on availability. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The additional population associated with project development will increase the need for medical services and facilities. Emergency care as well as preventative medicine will be required. These additional demands placed upon health care services and facilities are not considered to be significant as the medical community generally increases commensurate with the increase in population. According to staff of several of the above named medical facilities, occupancy is generally far below patient capacity. Therefore, according to representatives of several of the health. care facilities and services (Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, Riverside Community Hospital, Goodhew Ambulance), adequate health care service and facilities will be available to future project residents. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-146 QXeneral Plan Relationship O The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan' (February 1990) does not include the azea within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazazds and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. According to the Public facilities and services Element of the Comprehensive General Plan, the County shall coordinate with all health service agencies to ensure that adequate health facilities aze available to meet the needs of the population. c. 1Vlitigation 1Vieasures No mitigations aze proposed. d. Level of Significance After 1Viitigation Based upon the lack of impacts and mitigation measures as noted above, the level of impacts related to health services has been reduced to an insignificant level. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-147 O 11. I.IGR1' A1VID GLARE a. E~sting Conditions The project site is currently vacant and emits an insignificant amount of light and glare. The proposed project is located within the 30 mile special lighting area of the Mt. Palomar Observatory. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The development of 850 residential units and 23.9 acres of commercial and commercial/office space will result in the placement and installation of street lighting as required by the City of Temecula. Additionally, entry monumentation and signage as well as parking lot lighting may also require illumination. Due to the projects location relative to the Observatory, the on-site lighting requirements, as well as potential light and glare caused as a result of refections off buildings utilizing reflective materials, could potentially result in a condition known as "skyglow," which interferes with the use of the telescope at the Observatory. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes Specific Plan project site lies within the boundaries of the newly O incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan." (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. According to the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Polices, a special lighting area is established as the area within a thirty mile radius of the Mt. Palomar Observatory. All lighting within the thirty (30) mile radius zone shall be low-pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lamps. c. 1Vlitigation 1Vleasures 1. Because of the projects location with respect to the Mt. Palomar Observatory and in accordance with the Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Polices of the Comprehensive General Plan, all lighting within the project shall be low pressure sodium vapor lamps. 2. Other potentially lighted azeas (i.e., entry monumentation, business signage) shall orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS RDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-148 3. The project shall be subject to County Ordinance No. 655 or a similar City of O Temecula ordinance regulating light pollution. 4. Landscape buffers shall partially mitigate potential light and glare impacts. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to light and glare has been reduced to an insignificant level. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O AMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-149 O 12. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS a. E~sting Conditions Earthquakes, floods and wildland fires are natural occurrences which cannot be prevented. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster the County Office of Disaster Preparedness is responsible for coordinating the various agencies to assure preparedness and recovery of such an event. These agencies include the Fire and/or Forestry Department(s), the Sheriff Department, utility companies, hospitals, etc. The County Office of Disaster Preparedness maintains a disaster preparation plan for response to natural and man-made disasters. The plan consists of information regarding the location of natural hazazds, such as active and potentially active earthquake faults, landslide azeas, dam inundation azeas, 100-year flood areas, and fire hazazd areas. An ongoing communication system links County and City departments with each other as well as with safety agencies, utility agencies, etc. The plan also contains the organization and administration of disaster response efforts relating to evacuation, emergency communication, medical supplies, shelter, emergency food, utility service, fire protection, etc. Information programs aze also available to promote a well informed public. b. Project Impacts/G'.eneral Plan Relationship O Potential impacts to the proposed Campos Verdes Center Specific Plan such as seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and fire services are discussed in their respective sections to this document. General Plan Relationship The Campos Verdes project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The disaster prepazedness supplement to the Riverside County General Plan identifies the agencies with differing responsibilities and their role in assuring preparedness and recovery after a disaster has occurred. General Plan compatibility will be assured by following the mitigations proposed in sections V.C.1, Seismic Safety, V.C.2, Slopes and Erosion, V.C.3, Hydrology and V.D.3, Fire Services. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-150 c. Mitigation Measures O Refer to mitigation contained in sections V.C.1., Seismic Safety, V.C.2., Slopes and Erosion, V.C.3, Hydrology and V.D.3, Fire Services. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures referred to above, the level of impacts related to disaster preparedness has been reduced to an insignificant level. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-151 0 ]E. lf3[®LT~I)i1G IELEP><EA1T 1. Q~'iEATEItAI. PLAN POLICIES The City of Temecula does not have an adopted General Plan document for use in the review; therefore, in the absence of a City prepared and adopted General Plan, this section has been prepared using the County of Riverside's General Plan. Although the policies and goals discussed in this analysis are not City adopted, they will be used as guidelines by the PlanniIlg Commission and City Council. a. Applicable ]Housing Programs 1. Program -Project Compatibility with Aries Development: Project Compatibility with area development will be assessed by examining its consistency with the surrounding lot sizes, lot uses and other appropri- ate development standards. 2. Program -Contiguous Development: The project will be reviewed for contiguous development to ensure the best and most of&cient use of infrastructure and services and to obtain a growth pattern which is orderly and enhances the quality of the area. O 3. Program -Resident Participation in Community Plans: Resident participation in Community Plans is recommended so that the develop- ment standards and criteria for that community plan will meet the resident's goals, objectives and concerns and at the same time provide housing opportunities for all segments of the community. 4. Program -Housing Types and Mix: The City will consider policies and development standards that will provide for a variety of housing types and mix throughout the City. Program -Housing Proximity to Jobs: Provide for housing in proximity to jobs and daily activities. 6. Program -Development Monitoring: Provide a system for monitoring land with infrastructure, services and buildable lots. 7. Program -Master Environmental Assessments: Develop Master Environmental Assessments. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONhfENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R.1V0. 348 V-152 8. Program -Housing Density Determinations: These programs are designed to monitor and review residential development throughout the City and are executed by City staff. b. Applicable ]Sousang ]Policies Wflthan ®ther ]Elements Applicable housing policies outlined in the Comprehensive General Plan include: Provide a comprehensive and coordinated effort to improve infrastructure and community surroundings and to encourage the provision of adequate public and private services and facilities in all residential areas. Review development projects to ensure that they will be consistent and compatible with the existing community environment and that they are not costly "leap frog" developments. In conjunction with the revisions of the Countywide General Plan, recognize the continuing need for community plans that establish development criteria and standards to meet the goals, objectives, and concerns of wmmunities within the County, while minimizing the environmental hazazds and constraints. Encourage energy conservation programs to be used in existing homes and new O housing developments. Plan and provide for housing that responds to market needs and satisfies varied price and type demands of the residents of the City. Develop a system to maintain an inventory of buildable lots, where current and planned infrastructure exist, for the purpose of providing adequate housing sites. Actively promote equal housing opportunities. Monitor and review for effectiveness all programs adopted as a part of this Housing Element. 1) Affordable Housine Incentives The Campos Verdes Specific Plan designates land uses in the project area to be in Land Use Categories I and II, which consist of Urban uses. Categories I and II do not require affordable housing units for low and moderate income households, and therefore, the proposed development will not offer affordable housing incentives. V. GENERAI. PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN 1V0. 1/E.I.R. P10. 348 V-153 O 2. SPECIFIC PLAPI a. Project Y3elationshiP to General Plan Policies 1) Proiect Housine Inventory The Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes 850 dwelling units that respond to the marketing needs of the City of Temecula. The site features Medium Low, Medium and Very High Residential density categories. 2) Proiect Compatibility This project is compatible with the existing community environment and has provided a mix of housing densities in an area where infrastructure and services exist or will exist in the future. The plan also provides housing that responds to market needs and will promote equal housing opportunities for all segments in the community. These policies are outlined in the Comprehensive General Plan and are applicable to the proposed project. 3) Proiect Desierl Mitieation O As indicated in Table I, Specific Land Use Summary, there are 850 residential dwelling units proposed on 132.9 acres. Both lower and higher density residential communities are proposed for Campos Verdes. Increased opportuni- ties will be provided for a quiet and safe environment due to reduced thru- traffic and increased interaction. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan also proposes residential development utilizing a concept where adequate support facilities are provided in a safe and convenient manner. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPO3 VEItuES SPECIFIC FLAN 1V0. 1/E.I.R. P10. 348 V-154 ~s 1CbL` GIOIVAL ~LL1Ydd'~1V a O The City of Temecula does not have an' adopted General Plan document for use in the review; therefore, in the absence of a City prepared and adopted General Plan, this section has been prepared using the County of Riverside's General Plan. Although the policies and goals discussed in this analysis are not City adopted, they will be used as guidelines by the Planning Commission and City Council. 1. REGIONAL GROR'TH (SLAG) I' ORECAST3 This portion of the report provides an analysis of the population projections for the region, including projections by Riverside County Planning Department and the Southern California Association of Governments, and discusses the project's impacts upon those growth forecasts. It is organized into three sections: the first is an identification of the regional growth forecasts for the project site; the sewnd is a description of the growth forecast in the Southwest Area Community Plan Area in which the project is located; and the third is a comparative analysis of the project's population with the population projected for the region. a. Ident~cation of Regional Growth p'orecasts for Project Site The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recently adopted a Growth Management Plan (GMP) which recommended a growth management policy for Southern O California to the year 2010. The GMP discusses policies designed to attain more beneficial growth patterns, presents a growth forecast incorporating a previously approved jobslhousing balance growth management policy, and proposes an implementa- tion policy for the GMP. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan is located within an area called "Central Riverside County" and designated as "urbanizing" in the GMP. Population within the central Riverside County area is projected to increase from 237,100 in 1988 to 581,400 by the year 2010. b. RSA/Land YJse Planning Area Profile The project site is located within the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) boundaries. An EIR prepared for the SWAP provides an analysis of the growth expected in the area. Based on data provided in that document, the Southwest Area Community is expected to grow to approximately 142,439 by the by the year 2010. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPUS VERDE9 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 34$ V-155 0 O Defined Area Central Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan YEAR 1984 1988 2010 195,800 237,100 581,400 not given 30,192 142,439 The Riverside County Planning Department recently prepared a report entitled "Population Projections by RSA and Census Tracts". In that report it is noted that: "Population increases in Riverside County have set unprecedented growth rates in recent years. Similar trends in population increase were established throughout Southern California. However, all indicators point to Riverside County to outpace surrounding Counties." The County also notes that "present trends indicate residential, commerciaUindustrial growth will continue to be strongest in the Lake Elsinore, Perris Valley, Moreno Valley, and Rancho California Region". The Riverside County report presents four potential growth scenarios for Riverside County, including two growth models reflective of natural trends based on building permit activity, one model which is based on data from the State of California Department of Finance, and one model based on SCAG's growth projections. The County report notes that the latter model best typifies the direction which present population trends are heading, based on anticipated political and policy changes in which the emphasis in growth is placed on a jobs to housing balance. The project site is located within the Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 49. Major communities located within RSA 49 include Rancho California, Elsinore and Temecula. The County's growth projections for the area indicate that population within RSA 49 could increase from 78,574 in 1989 to up to 196,635 by the year 2000. Population Projections in RSA 49 by the Riverside County Planning Department O Scenario YEAR 1989 1995 2000 RSA 49 78,574 130,346 196,635 c. Project Growth Forecast Comparative Analysis with Regional Growth Forecast Based on the data presented, the population within RSA 49 will increase by approzamate- ly 81 percent by the year 2000. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIAONMENTAL ANALYSIS CiAMPOB VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN 1V0. 1/E.I.R. A10. 348 V-156 '.~. APPLICABLE IEAYPLOYMEP7'I'/I$OUSING BALANCE POLICIES O The County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan provides a program "to encourage and promote balanced development on a regional and wuntywide basis....The intent of these policies is to facilitate a mig of housing and employment opportunities to achieve job/housing balance:' Specific items in the General Plan which endeavor to achieve a job balance in the area include policies to: Adopt relatively high employment growth forecasts for the subregion. Support commercial and industrial development within the subregion in SCAG's review of development proposals. Work with other governmental agencies (including federal agencies, the State of California, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and local governments) to incorporate this criterion in their project approval process. Work with local governments and the private sector to identify and implement local economic development strategies. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes 23.9 acres of commercial and commer- ciaUoffice uses. On-site employment opportunities for local residents will be generated as a result of the project development. Proposed land uses will be supportive of on-site residential communities and will facilitate the County's policies for a job/housingbalance. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN A10. I/E.I.A. 1V0. 348 V-157 O Qu'. ADR/iINISTRATIVE IELEIV[EAIT The City of Temecula does aot have an adopted General Plan document for use in the review; therefore, in the absence of a City prepared and adopted General Plan, this section has been prepared using the County of Riverside's General Plan. Although the policies and goals discussed in this analysis are not City adopted, they will be used as guidelines by the Planning Commission and City Council. 1. LAND YT9E POLICIES/~PECIFIC PLAN TIAYFrI~ RAMES - I~ROJECT TIME-F'RAMF.S FOR DEVELOPMENT' The City of Temecula requires that a phasing plan be adopted for each Specific Plan and that each plan be monitored for reasonable progress toward implementation. A phasing program is outlined in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan in Section IIIA.7. The applicants will work closely with the City to assure timely and logical completion of the project based on the phasing plan, subject to City approved modifications resulting from -~ updated market and economic data. 2, lE'ISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY A Fiscal Impact study for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan was prepared by Natelson, Levander, Whitney, Inc. and is included in the Technical Appendices to this report. O According to the Fiscal Impact study, the Campos Verdes project will generate a substantial net surplus to the City of Temecula as follows: Table ~1 ]Pascal IInxpact $uraalnaTy ----$000's----- General Fund 1,464.4 234.1 Fire Fund (237.9) (95.4) Library Fund 52.9 9.9 Road Fund 297.7 109.9 Flood Control 316.1 36.8 Development Fund 1,856.7 -- O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO.348 V-158 The Campos Verdes project is estimated to provide a net surplus to the City of Temecula O of appro~mately $3.75 million during the five-year development period and $295,300 annually thereafter approximately, as shown above. These projections are in 1990 constant dollars. Only the Fire Fund shows a deficit. This is because the project tag rate share allocated to the Fire District is inadequate to cover expenditures. This deficit condition is a typical situation with most new residential projects in unincorporated Riverside County. Irre- spective, the amount of deficit projected for the Fire District is well below surplus amounts projected for Riverside County ae a whole. O V. GsrtExal. PLAx/ExvlxoxturErrrAt AxAl,~rsls O CAMPO3 VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN 1V0. 1/E.I.R. Alo. 34$ V-159 O ffio PJtA1`~A7L'®]EB.~i ~IE~ 7l'®]~II~~ 1. CYTPRi.T%.BiTIVE YRhIPACT A1VAY.YS%S The proposed Campos Verdes project is located within an area which has in the past exhibited rapid urbanization as a result of demand pressures for affordable housing. Initially, significant growth occurred in Corona, Norco and the City of Riverside. Growth restrictive measures were passed in some of these areas in efforts to preserve ..their rural atmospheres. These growth restrictions, coupled with low land costs and inexpensive housing prices, have created recent demand for housing in the Rancho California/Temecula azea. In addition, the construction of I-15 to a full freeway and the improvement of 215 (formerly I-15E) has enhanced accessibility of the Rancho California azea and acts as an impetus to the development trends. The Campos Verdes project site is located within the 210,738 acres enwmpassed by Southwest Area Community Plan Draft EIR No. 21? (December 1988) prepared by the Riverside County Planning Department. This document evaluates the environmental effects associated with the Southwest Area Community Plan and considers development under three scenarios. The "Project Scenario" is the "worst case" assessment required by CEQA and proposes 318,145 d.u., 763,546 persona, 6,348 acres of commercial use and 6,105 acres of manufacturing. The uses proposed by the Campos Verdes project aze in accordance with the densities set forth by the Southwest Area Policy Plan. The "Project O Scenario" also considers development associated with approved Specific Plana in the Southwest Area Community Plan azea. Therefore, Southwest Area Community Plan Draft EIR No. 217 (State Clearinghouse No. 86012001) can be considered a detailed assessment of Cumulative Impacts associated with development of the proposed project as well as other developments in the azea. In accordance with Section 15150 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, this document is hereby incorporated by reference. Draft EIR No. 217 is available for review at the Riverside County Planning Department as well as at public libraries in the project area. In order to summarize and supplement Southwest Area Community Plan Draft EIR No. 217, the following additional information is provided. As previously indicated, a number of developments aze planned in the vicinity of the proposed Campos Verdes, contributing to cumulative impacts in the project area. They are generally confined to the azea east of I-215 and south of Benton Road, as delineated in Table XVI, Cumulative Projects and Figure V-20, Cumulative Projects. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-160 O O O O W m w g ~ ~ ~ o U O W ~ J ~~ a ~a N m@~5„ 5 ~ ~a3=3 ~ °' 3 ~3 C7 °~ xs °a Qo v rnv •r~ ~' lqr JA ~IJ a h G q U r~ ~ / o ® N h ti C h N U C Ci 0 TABLE XVI CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Indust./Office 1. Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan 184 2. Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan 184 3. Dutch Village Specific Plan 106, Amended 4. Murrieta Hot Springs and Alta Murrieta Specific Plan 103 (also includes Winchester Mesa) O 5. Johnson Ranch Specific Plan 233* 6. Winchester Property Specific Plan 213 7. Warm Springs Specific Plan 220 8. Margarita Village Specific Plan 199 9. Winchester Hills Specific Plan 255* 10. Winchester Meadows** Industrial Park Total Residential Commercial Acres Units Acreaee 798 2,571 13 205 710 73 1,248 1,240 150 2,715 12,366 36 1,765 5,269 64 1,108 2,478 268 475 1,886 37 1,272 3,639 13 570 1,948 147 118 0 118 O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-162 TABLE XVI (Continued) O CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Indust./Office Total Residential Commercial Acres Units Acrea¢e 11. Temecula Regional Center* 231 0 231 (including Parcel Map north of Winchester Road) 12. Campos Verdes* 133 850 24 Total 10,638 32,957 1,174 * Projects are proposed, but not approved by either the County of Riverside or the City of Temecula. ** This Bedford Development project is in the preliminary planning stage and applications have not yet been submitted to the the City of Temecula. Its location can be seen on Figure V-9, Surrounding Land Use. It should be noted O that these proposed projects, as well as the Campos Verdes project, are in accordance with the land use designations assigned by the recently-approved SWAP. Cumulatively, the above listed major developments total an estimated 32,957 dwelling units, approximately 1,174 acres of office, commercial and industrial use, with a population total of approximately 85,359 (2.59 persons per d.u.). The 850 dwelling units proposed by the Campos Verdes project constitutes approximately 2.6% of the estimated 32,957 units proposed in the project area. The 24 acres of office/commercial uses proposed by the Campos Verdes project represents .2% of the 1,174 acres of proposed industrial/office/commercial uses for the area. While the individual projects may contribute marginally to growth in the area, the collective projects will create an overall change in the once rural and sparsely populated nature of the region. The overall increase in units and related demands along neighborhood roads and for local services and utilities will cumulatively impact the area. In addition, the development of these projects in what was once asemi-rural but steadily developing area could result in conversion of adjoining lands to similar uses. Therefore, ultimate urbanization of the project vicinity could potentially, indirectly influence expansion throughout the area. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-163 O Areas for which cumulative impacts may be pazticulazly noteworthy aze discussed below: a. Seismic Safety, Slopes and Erosion Impacts resulting from grading for construction of numerous development projects in the area will potentially alter the natural topography of 10,638 acres in the region. Cut and fill operations will be necessary in areas designated for development of lots and pads. A large portion of the Rancho California/Temecula area is comprised of gently rolling hills with well defined water courses. This may, in some cases, require extensive cut and fill operation which will impact landforms. Because of the presence of regional faults, the potential exists for impacts as a result of a seismic episode. The project site and adjacent areas are subject to potential inundation due to aseismically-induced failure to Lake Skinner Dam. This is considered a significant local impact. b. Flooding and Water Quality Drainage patterns and the quality, velocity and composition of runoff' will be altered by large scale grading of azeas planned for construction, as well as the creation of impervious surfaces (such as roadways, driveways, parking lots, etc.) Runoff entering streams will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, thereby impacting the downstream water quality in Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. Siltation resulting from exposed ground surfaces from grading also may affect downstream water O quality. Infiltration of water used for irrigation of landscaped areas throughout the vicinity may affect the abundance and distribution of ground- water. It is anticipated that storm drain systems will be constructed in accordance with the County's Master Drainage Plan in order to mitigate impacts on Iocai drainage patterns. c. Noise Noise during construction activities will impact noise conditions in the region on a short-term basis. It is expected that any cumulative construction noise impact would be mitigated, as the proposed projects are physically separate for the most part, and construction hours can be limited. The major cumulative noise impact in the area would result from the increased traffic volumes in the vicinity, impacting existing surrounding dwelling units with noise levels greater than 60 CNEL. As discussed in Section V.C.5, Noise, future noise levels are projected to increase over existing noise levels by more than 3 dBA on the CNEL scale for many of the roadways in the project area; however, in some instances the 3 dBA increase is reflective of the very low traffic volumes presently found in the area and will not result in the exposure of existing residences to unacceptable noise levels. Also, only those roadways that have a significant noise increase and are adjacent to existing residential developments are of concern. Roadways along planned residential areas that are not yet developed can be mitigated by the developer at the time of construction. Several off-site roadways are expected to experience significant cumulative noise impacts due to regional growth. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-164 d. Climate and Air Quality Construction of numerous additional projects will cumulatively impact air quality in the O vicinity. Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities which occur sepazately or simultaneously. However, the greatest cumulative impact on the quality of the regional air cell will be in incremental additional pollutants from increased traffic in the azea and increased consumption of energy by inhabitants of the various new projects. This is a significant impact, both as a result of individual projects and on a cumulative basis. Development of 32,957 dwelling units and 1,174 acres of industrial/ofiice/commercial land uses will result in the generation of 564,370 vehicle trips per day based upon trip generation factors of 10.0 trips per residential dwelling unit and 200.0 trips per acre of industrial/commercial/office uses. Assuming an average trip length of 7.0 miles (3,950,590 total vehicle miles) and pollutant generation factors contained in Section V.C.6, Air Quality, cumulative development will result in the generation of 53,690 pounds of Carbon Monoxide, 10,442 pounds of Nitrogen Oxides, 2,088 pounds of Sulfur Oxides, 2,497 pounds of particulates and 4,283 pounds of hydrocazbons on a daily basis. Although the primary source of emissions generated by these cumulative projects will be from motor vehicles, additional emissions will be generated off-site from the combustion of natural gas for heating and the generation of electricity. e. ®pen Space and Conservation Development of numerous projects planned on 10,638 acres in the region would O influence the atmosphere of passive rural open space and scattered development which typifies the outlying azeas of the Temecula/Rancho California area. However, it is anticipated that plans for preservation of large open space azeas and recreational azeas within these various projects and as required by the SWAP may retain the existing rural open space atmosphere in some azeas. The following proposed or approved projects in the region provide or propose park and open space amenities: Rancho Bella Vista (5 acres of park and 210 acres of open space); Roripaugh Estates (7 acres of park and 19 acres o£ open space); Dutch Village (7 acres o£ park and 120 acres of open space); Murrieta Hot Springs (52.5 acres of pazks, 160.3 acres of open space and a 165.2 acre golf course); Johnson Ranch (13.8 acres of park, 186.2 acres of open space and 290.7 acres of golf courses); Winchester Specific Plan (12 acres of park and 216 acres of open space); Warm Springs (15 acres of park); Margarita Village (25 acres of park and a 141 acre golf course); and- Winchester Hills (25.8 acres of parks). Although these proposed projects will influence the current open space character of the azea, it is expected that uses proposed will be compatible with the current atmosphere of urban use. f. Agriculture Construction of various projects in the vicinity will continue and possibly accelerate the trend towazds development of agricultural lands in Riverside County. This involves some land designated as "Prime Farmland" on the Countywide Agricultural Resources V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-165 Map. The amount of "Prime Farmland" removed by several of the cumulative projects O cited above is noted as follows: Winchester Property (208 acres); Johnson Ranch (0 acres); Wincheater Hills (85 acres); and Temecula Regional Center (180 acres). In general, development of these proposed urban uses may increase the economic pressures on other agricultural properties to develop with urban uses. Due to the loss of "Prime Farmland", impacts to agriculture are significant on a project and on a cumulative basis. g. Wildlife and Vegetation The loss of introduced grassland habitat resulting from implementation of the proposed project will contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources on a regional basis. These impacts aze those which are now occurring in the region as a result of past and planned developments. These impacts include: 1) an overall reduction in the native and naturalized biotic resources of the region; and 2) loss of secondary foraging habitat for migratory populations of birds of prey which aze winter visitors to the region. The proposed project incrementally contributes to the cumulative loss of these biological resources. The other projects listed in Table XVII would further ..contribute to the cumulative loss of these resources. In regards to the Federally listed endangered Stephens' kangazoo rat, the cumulative loss of its habitat from the region would contribute further to its decline and is considered a significant cumulative impact. h. Historic and Prehistoric Resources O ~ Development of the area will disturb any existing unknown archaeological or paleontological resources because of grading and excavation activities unless these azeas are preserved as natural open space. However, if a certified archaeologist or paleontolo- gist is present, where necessary, during the grading operations, these impacts may be largely mitigated. This impact may be considered positive due to the discovery of resources which would have not otherwise been evaluated or uncovered. It is possible that grading and excavation in the area will uncover valuable resources which would contribute to the paleo-environmental and archaeological record of the southwestern Riverside County area. i. Circulation and Traffic Ultimate development of additional dwelling units and office/ commercial/industrial uses in the project area will generate a large increase in local and regional traffic volumes. As previously indicated, these cumulative projects will generate approximately 564,370 vehicle trips per day which will impact existing roadways, necessitating the expansion and improvement of existing and construction of new regional roadway networks in order to accommodate additional traffic flows. Within developments it will be necessary to install circulation systems with sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic generated, in coordination with the regional roadway system. Section V.D.1, Circulation, evaluates impacts associated with cumulative development in the azea and concludes that with the additional roadway/intersection improvements identified in the study, all study area O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CA,MPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-166 intersections would operate at Level of Service D or better. The effects of local transit service and other transportation system management programs (not assumed in the O Traffic Study) would also help reduce vehicular demand in the study area. The City of Temecula is proposing a citywide mitigation fee to address these kinds of issues and other local transportation concerns. Also, it should be noted that some of the needed off-site roadway and intersection needs for the area are currently under design as part of the Winchester Assessment District 161. Other needed improvements would be included in the recently approved Ynez Corridor Mello Rooa District 88-12. j. Y7tilities and Services Increased development in the project area will incrementally increase the demand for public utilities and services, including water and sewer service; electricity and natural gas services; telephone and cable television services; police and fire protection; school and park facilities; public transportation; hospital and ambulance service; and solid waste disposal service. This increased demand may be viewed as a growth- inducement to existing systems, which may result in expansion or extension of existing service facilities to serve all anticipated projects. k. Water aad Sewer Services Increased expansion in the project area will increase the demand from the Eastern Municipal Water District, the Rancho California Water District and any other affected Districts for sewer and water service. Additional lines and facilities will be required and O improvement districts formed to provide this service effectively to all developments in the azea. Eastern Municipal Water District estimates that these cumulative projects will generate an average daily demand of 24 million gallons per day (MGD) for domestic water (not including fire flow requirements) and 13.4 MGD of sewage flow. The current capacity of the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility is 6.25 MGD with a current auerage flow of 4.0 MGD. These cumulative projects will create the need for a 12.0 MGD expansion of this facility. Costs associated with the expansion of water and sewer treatment, distribution and storage facilities will necessarily be borne by the individual developers. Commitments to service must be confirmed by the water and sewer service providers. 1. Electricity and 1Vatural Gas Service The addition of 32,957 dwelling units and 1,174 acres of office/ commercial/industrial use to the azea will create a need for additional electricity and natural gas service. Southern California Edison and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) utilize an estimated residential demand rate of 6,081 kwh/unit/year. With an estimated cumulative total of 32,957 dwelling units in the project area, the ultimate demand for electricity for the proposed residential uses alone may reach 200,411,517 kwh/year. Additional electricity would be required to serve the 1,174 acres of office/commercial/industrial uses proposed. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-167 The Southern California Gas Company and the SCAQMD generally utilizes a rate of O 6,665 cu feet/d.u./month. Considering the estimated cumulative dwelling unit total of 32,957 d.u., approximately 219,658,405 cubic feet per month of natural gas could be consumed. Additional natural gas would be required to serve the 1,174 acres of office/commercial/industrial uses proposed. Additional Southern California Gas lines, as well as Southern California Edison lines, would be required to provide these services to the area. m. Police and Fire Protection Growth in the project azea will increase the demand for fire and police services provided by the County of Riverside and State of California law enforcement and fire protection agencies. Based upon Sheriff's Department officer to population ratios and a generation factor of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit, development of 32,957 dwelling units will result in the need for 198 sworn oflicers, 28 civilian personnel and 66 additional vehicles. While similaz factors are not available from the County Fire Department, this cumulative development will result in the increased demand for additional firefighters, equipment and additional and/or improvements to existing facilities. Primary fire stations for Category II development must be within three miles of future development sites. It is expected that each project applicant will cooperate with local jurisdictions to assure that sufficient effective services aze provided to serve each project, thereby ensuring a safe environment throughout the area. The payment of fire impact mitigation O fees of $400 per residential unit will be applied towazda construction of additional fire stations and the purchase of equipment. n. School and Park Construction of the Campos Verdes project proposal and development of surrounding azeas will increase azea population, and therefore, the demand on schools and park facilities. Based upon generation factors of .442 students per household (grades K through 8) and .333 students per household (grades 9 through 12) as provided by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, the 32,957 dwelling units associated with cumulative development will generate a total of 14,567 elementary (grades K-8) and 10,957 secondary (grades 9-12) students. Based upon the Temecula Community Services District factor of 5 acres of pazkland per 1,000 population and the County factor of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit, cumulative development will generate the need for 426.8 acres of pazkland, It is expected that each development will cooperate with local school districts so that sufficient facilities aze collectively provided to accommodate the students generated. In addition, construction of schools will be funded through State Law AB 2926 or if necessary, through the establishment of a Mello-Roos District. It is anticipated that additional pazk facilities will be provided within the respective developments or park fees paid to alleviate demands upon existing parks. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-168 o. Solid 9daste Development of the uses proposed by these cumulative developments could result in the O generation of 414 tons of solid waste per day (assuming 9.71bs. per person per day). This factor represents the wastes generated both in homes and in commercial and light industrial uses. This would incrementally contribute to the decreased lifespan of the affected landfill sites. This accentuates the importance of long range planning for replacement landfill sites or alternative disposal systems. The County is required to address AB 939 which requires implementation of plans to reduce the overall waste stream by 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. p. Library Service Development of the cumulative projects will result in the need for additional library volumes, square footage and library staff. Additional library facilities are funded through the Development Mitigation Fee. q. wealth Service Expansive development in the project area may necessitate enlargement of existing hospital and medical facilities as well as expansion of ambulance service. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-169 2. SUMRRARY ®IA U1VAV®%%DABLE ADVERSE IldI~ACTS O O O CEQA and its associated Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15143 (b)) states that an EIR must describe any significant impacts which cannot be avoided or eliminated if the project is implemented. These impacts have been discussed in detail in the body of this EIR under various topical headings and are listed below along with a determination of whether they can be mitigated to a level of non-significance. Those impacts which remain as "significant" will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations from the City of Temecula. Proiect Impact Level after Mitieation Environmental Hazards and Resources Element: 1. Seismic Safety Significant 2. Slopes and Erosion Non-Significant 3. Wind Erosion and Blowsand Non-Significant 4. Flooding Significant 5. Noise Significant 6. Climate and Air Quality Significant 7. Water Quality Non-Significant 8. Toxic Substances Non-Significant 9. Agriculture Significant 10. Open Space and Conservation Non-Significant 11. WildlifeNegetation Significant 12. Mineral Resources Non-Significant 13. Energy Resources Non-Significant 14. Scenic Highways Non-Significant 15. Cultural and Scientific Resources Non-Significant Public Facilities and Services: 1. Circulation and Traffic Significant 2. Water and Sewer Non-Significant 3. Fire Services Significant 4. Sheriff Services Significant 5. Schools Significant 6. Parks and Recreation Non-Significant 7. Utilities Significant 8. Solid Waste Non-Significant 9. Libraries Significant 10. Health Services Non-Significant 11. Light and Glare Non-Significant 12. Airports Non-Significant 13. Disaster Preparedness Non-Significant V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-170 The significant adverse impacts noted above aze listed and briefly described below. Each O description is followed by a section cross-reference which may be utilized in order to secure additional detail. Seismic Safety: There exists the potential for inundation of the site due to failure of Skinner Reservoir due to a catastrophic earthquake. (See Section V.C.1, Seismic Safety.) Floodine -There exists the potential for inundation of the site due to failure of the upstream Skinner Reservoir (see Section V.C.4, Flooding). Noise: The proposed project incrementally contributes to regional traffic increases which result in significant noise increases to off-site azeas (see Section V.C.S, Noise). Climate and Air Quality: Vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project exceed the threshold of "significant" as defined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (see Section V.C.6, Climate and Air Quality.) ~riculture: The proposed project results in the loss of "Prime" Agricultural soils which is considered a significant impact. The project also contributes incrementally to the County-wide decrease of "Prime" soils for agricultural use. (See Section V.C.9, Agriculture.) Wildlife/Ve2etation: The proposed project will contribute incrementally to the O cumulative reduction of naturalized biotic resources of the region and secondary foraging habitat for migratory bird populations (see Section V.C.11, WildlifeNegetation). Circulation and Traffic: The proposed project will generate approximately 16,184 daily vehicle trips which results in Level of Service "D" at several impacted intersections (see Section V.D.1, Circulation and Traffic). Fire Services: Project development will result in demand for fire protection services which cannot be fully mitigated through contributions to the Fire Protection Impact Mitigations Program (see Section V.D.3, Fire Services). Sheriff Services: Project development will result in demand for sheriff services which cannot be fully mitigated through collection of taxes (see Section V.D.4, Sheriff Services). Schools: Project development will result in demand for schools which cannot be fully mitigated through payment of State-mandated fees (see Section V.D.5, Schools). Utilities: The proposed project will generate an additional demand for electrical (8,375,385 kilowatt hours per year) and natural gas (4,745,368 cubic feet per month) V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-171 O which cannot be fully mitigated through proposed energy conservation measures (see Section V.D.7, Utilities). Libraries - The proposed project will incrementally increase demand upon the City/County library. This impact is only partially mitigated through the collection of fees at the time of development (see Section V.D.9, Libraries). O O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-172 3.' ALTERNATIVES T® THE PROPOSEYD PROJECT It is the intent of this section to present several alternatives to the proposed project. O According to State EIR guidelines, an EIR must present alternatives which are capable of eliminating significant environmental impacts and state why they were rejected for the proposed project. Included in this section are alternatives addressing the following scenarios: a) the No Project Alternative; b) the Existing Zoning Alternative; c) Reduced Density Alternative No. 1; d) Reduced Density Alternative No. 2; e) the Increased Office/ Alternative; f) the Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative, and g) consideration of Alternative Sites for the project. The City of Temecula must evaluate the comparative merits of these alternatives. The State EIR guidelines require a discussion of alternatives that are capable of mitigating or eliminating significant environmental impacts associated with a project proposal. The No Project Alternative eliminates all project impacts, while the Existing Zoning Alternative reduces environmental impacts. Both of these Alternatives are considered "environmentally superior" to the current Campos Verdes project proposal. Although the Reduced Density Alternatives and the Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative incrementally reduce some impacts, they are not considered to be "environmentally superior", as they don't eliminate any "unavoidable adverse impacts", as presented in Section V.H.2. a. No Proiect Alternative The "No Project" Alternative would retain the site in its present undeveloped condition, O supporting limited dryland agricultural land use and passive open space uses. This alternative maintains the existing environmental conditions of the subject property, as discussed in the "Existing Conditions" portions of Section V.C, Environmental Hazards and Resources Element and Section V.D., Public Facilities and Services Element. This Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative for the following reasons: 1. Elimination of grading impacts and associated impacts upon landform, geology, hydrology, prehistoric resources, etc. 2. Reduction in traffic and associated air quality and noise impacts over development scenarios associated with the project proposal, or other alternatives considered herein. 3. Retention of on-site open space uses allowing continued use of the "Prime" soils and Local Important Farmlands existing on-site. 4. Elimination of biological impacts related to the disruption of wildlife on-site resulting in reduced or displaced wildlife populations. 5. Elimination of impacts associated with provision of public services and utilities V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-173 >R,E.a-s®lvs F®x a~EJECTI®N ®F N®1Pi~,®~ECT ALTEx1vATi<vE O This alternative would negate the benefits associated with the project objective of reflecting anticipated marketing needs and public demand by providing a range of housing types, neighborhood commercial and Office/Commercial uses which will be mazketable within the developing economic profile of the Rancho California area as well as the City of Temecula. Also, the No Project Alternative would eliminate public benefits associated with the project, including the provision of 13.5 acres of park/ detention basin and recreation use. Other project benefits lost with the No Project Alternative include improving on-site and off-site roadways in accordance with the Riverside County Circulation Element. Due to the site's location within a developing urban area, as well as the site's SWAP designations for urban uses, long term agricultural/ undeveloped use is not considered likely nor logical. Based upon these factors, as well as the easy availability of public utilities serving the area, the high cost ~.. of irrigation water, the limited distribution of the prime soils on-site, and the economic factors associated with development pressures, the No Project Alternative was rejected. O ,. b. Existing Zonin¢ Alternative This Alternative considers development of the site pursuant to the Riverside County zoning designations as currently applied to the 132.9-acre project site. (See Figure V-7, Project Site and Surrounding Zoning.) The on-site zoning designations are estimated as follows: Desienation Acres Allowed Dwelline Units R-R (Rural Residential) A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture) O 37.9 75 95.0 4 132.9 79 Within the two dwelling units per acre limitation associated with the R-R (Rural Residential) zoning, the Existing Zoning Alternative allows development of a total of 75 dwelling units on 37.9 acres. This density (2.0 units per acre) is lower than the density within the proposed Campos Verdes project. The remaining 95 acres are zoned A-2-20, which permits continued agricultural use, and the development of one dwelling unit per 20 acres. This is lower than the densities currently permitted by SWAP. The residential dwelling unit total of 79 units associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative is 771 units fewer or approximately 91% less than the 850 units presently proposed. This Alternative would not require a Change of Zone but would likely necessitate an amendment to the Southwest Area Policy Plan. SWAP policies state that, "Development densities shall reflect the stated ranges on the land use allocation map, and be neither more than the high end nor less than the low end of the designated V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-174 range, unless less intense development is required for environmental or land use compatibility purposes". Therefore, an amendment to SWAP would be required to O designate the site as "Urban Reserve (1 - 2 d.u./acre)" and "Agriculture" to accommodate this Alternative. Environmental impacts associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative are anticipated as follows: Seismic Safety. Slopes and Erosion: Grading impacts would be incrementally reduced due to the reduced residential densities proposed. Assuming an 80% reduction in required earthwork as compared to the proposed project, the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in the movement of approximately 520,000 cubic yards. This assumption is based upon the 91% reduction in project density with adjustments being made in order to accommodate grading associated with required on-site .roadways and other infrastructure elements. However, grading will occur, and may potentially occur without a Master Grading Plan for the entire site due to uncoordinated construction occurring on different parcels. Continued agricultural operations could also result in the potential for erosion of soils. Fewer project residents and residential structures would be exposed to regional seismic hazards. HydroloQV and Water Quality: Impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative are anticipated to be incrementally reduced compared to those resulting from implementation of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as currently proposed. Due to the reduced residential densities, the large amount of undeveloped area associated with the A-2-20 zoning, and the absence of large concrete areas such as commercial pads and parking lots, the anticipated runoff generated by development of this Alternative is significantly reduced. According to the project engineer drainage flow rates exiting the project after development increase from 1,250 cubic feet per second (cfs) within the existing condition to a total of 1,890 cfs within the developed condition if no additional retention facilities are provided. Assuming a proportional increase of 20% over the existing condition for this Alternative (see quantification of grading impacts above), a developed flow rate for drainage existing the project site within the Existing Zoning Alternative would be approximately 1378 cfs without further mitigation. Circulation: In order to estimate traffic impacts associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative, the following calculations were performed: Generation Total Trips Land Use Units/Acres Rate Per Dav Single Family Residential 79 units 10.0 trips/d.u. 790 The current Campos Verdes Specific Plan is projected to generate 16,184 vehicle trips per day. The Existing Zoning Alternative generates 15,394 fewer vehicle trips per day, V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 O O V-175 a 95% reduction compared to vehicle trips generated by the current project proposal. O This would significantly reduce impacts to the area-wide circulation system. Locally, some conflict could result between the urban traffic flows found in the area and farm equipment traffic serving the site. It should be noted that the year 2000 improvement needs identified in the Traffic Study (contained as Technical Appendix F) address problems which would be caused by approved and proposed development in the area. The introduction of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan would add a small increment of traffic relative to the total projected traffic volumes on the adjacent street network. A comparison of improvement needs with and without the project indicates marginal differences which aze primarily related to access considerations at the perimeter of the project and on-site circulation. Noise: As discussed under "Circulation" the Existing Zoning Alternative will reduce total vehicle trips by an estimated 15,394 trips per day. This 95% reduction in vehicle trips will incrementally reduce both on- and off-site noise impacts. However, as discussed in Section V.5, Noise, most of the projected noise impacts aze due to other development projects already planned or approved in the area. As the Existing Zoning Alternative proposes significantly fewer units, fewer residents will be exposed to potential noise levels greater than 60 CNEL along North General Kearny Road, Margarita Road and Winchester Road. Climate and Air Quality: As discussed under "Circulation", the Existing Zoning Alternative will generate 790 vehicle trips per day. Assuming an average trip length of 7.0 miles, this Alternative would generate 5,530 vehicle miles per day, compared to the 113,288 vehicle miles of travel per day generated by the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as presently proposed. The following Vehiculaz Emissions would result from implementation of this Alternative: MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS CO = 5,530 VMT X 6.17 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 75.1 lbs/day NO~x, = 5,530 VMT x 1.20 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 14.6 lbs/day SO~x~ = 5,530 VMT x 0.24 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 2.9 lbs/day PART = 5,530 VMT x 0.287 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 3.5 Ibs/day NMHC = 5,530 VMT x 0.490 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 6.0 lbs/day Although the main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles, additional emissions will be generated off-site from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. The agricultural activity permitted by the Existing Zoning Alternative would also generate dust during planting, harvesting, plowing, etc. Air quality impacts associated with the spraying of pesticides and fertilizers are also anticipated. -O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-176 The emissions quantified above for the Existing Zoning Alternative aze less than anticipated to accompany development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as presently O proposed. In addition, they do not represent a significant impact, according to the "Air Quality Handbook for EIR's" prepared by the SCAQMD. Omen Snace and Conservation: The Existing Zoning Alternative would result in development of rural densities on the site and would allow future use of portions of the site for agriculture. The additional open space acreage .proposed by this Alternative reduces impacts to open space in the azea. Long term agricultural use may result in land use conflicts with adjacent urban uses as designated by SWAP. Aericulture: The Existing Zoning Alternative would allow continued dryland farming agricultural use in the southern portion of the site where A-2-20 zoning is found. This Alternative would not preclude future agricultural use of prime soils and "Farmlands of Local Importance" on the site; therefore, no significant impact would result. Wildlife/Vesetation: As a result of the reduced residential densities associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative, on-site biological impacts would be decreased. Any additional areas preserved within this Alternative aze composed of Introduced Grassland which are not of biological significance. Historic and Prehistoric Resources: Potential impacts to any historic or prehistoric resources on-site associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative are reduced compared to the proposed project. O Public Facilities: This Alternative proposes 79 dwelling units, which is 771 units fewer or approximately 91% less than the 850 units presently proposed. The Existing Zoning Alternative would greatly reduce demands for water, sewer and other public facilities and services as compared to the proposed project. The low densities proposed by this Alternative could potentially be accommodated by individual septic tanks and the use of on-site water wells rather than becoming a part of Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District facilities. Impacts to police and fire services, schools, parks, solid waste, libraries, etc. would also be significantly reduced. REASONS FOR REJECTION OF THE EXISTING'. ZONINGT ALTERNATIVE The Existing Zoning Alternative contains incrementally reduced impacts in the areas of traffic, noise, air quality and public facilities and utilities and is, therefore, considered to be "environmentally superior" to the current development proposal. However, the elimination of higher density residential uses restricts the range of affordable housing opportunities which would be available in the project area. Also, the Existing Zoning Alternative would eliminate public benefits associated with the project, including the provision of 13.5 acres of park/detention basin. Within this Alternative, the project site would be developed on a "piece-meal" basis rather than through a coordinated, Specific V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-177 Plan approach, Therefore, other project benefits such as improving off-site roadways in O accordance with the Riverside County Circulation Element would be reduced due to the reduced contributions to regional roadway improvement programs. On-site roadways in conformance with the County Circulation Element may not be provided due to the low density nature of this project alternative. In addition, this alternative is not compatible with the recently adopted SWAP. The Existing Zoning Alternative allows continued agricultural uses on the approximately 95 acres of the site zoned A-2-20. However, due to the SWAP designation for urban use, easy availability of public services serving the area, the high cost of irrigation water, the Iimited distribution of the prime soils on-site, and the economic factors associated with development pressures, long term agricultural use is not considered feasible. For these reasons, the Existing Zoning Alternative was rejected. c. Reduced IDensity Alternative 1-Io. 1 As indicated on Figure V-21, Reduced Density Alternative No. 1, this Alternative proposes 389 dwelling units, as well as 13.5 acres of Commercial use, 10.4 acres of Commercial/Office and a 13.5-acre pazk/detention basin site. Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 assumes development of the site per the low end of the density range permitted by SWAP. The approximately 48.1 acres of the site that are designated for "2-5 d.u./acre" by SWAP are calculated at 1.5 and 2.0 d.u./acre within Planning Areas 7 and 6, respectively, for a total of 32 Medium-Low and 54 Medium Density units. This is a decrease of 120 Medium-Low and Medium Density units compared to the current O Specific Plan proposal. The approximately 37.9 acres of the site that aze designated "8 - 16 d.u./acre" are calculated at 8 d.u./acre rather than the 17.0 d.u./acre proposed by the current Campos Verdes project, for a total of 303 multi-family units, a decrease of 341 units. The Commercial, Office/Commercial and park/detention site proposed by Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 remain the same as proposed by the current project proposal. The 389 dwelling units proposed by this Alternative aze a reduction of 461 units (54% reduction) compared to the current project proposal. This Alternative would require Specific Plan approval as does the current Campos Verdes proposal. The 54% reduction in project density associated with this Alternative will result in a reduction in the general extent of project grading and site disturbance as compazed to those levels associated with the proposed project. Grading necessary for provision of 389 dwelling units as well as 13.5 acres of Commercial use, 10.4 acres of Commercial/office, and a 13.5 acre park would likely disrupt a major portion of the project site. However, the reduced number of dwelling units (54% reduction) will offer the opportunity for provision of undisturbed, open areas intersperced within the proposed residential land uses while also reducing the amount of impervious surface created due to development. The precise extent of this change is difficult to quantify without a detailed residential site plan for this Alternative. However, this potential to preserve areas within residential uses associated with this Alternative results in a potential reduction in O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-178 U y ~a - O S 5`~ F 3~ ~ ~ m m ~~~~P o ~ = ~= ~= o ~ o ~ ~ m ~~_~_ - Q- , oQ ~ o-~_- - a _ ° ~ C ° > ~ W '' ~ " ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ r r o Q ~ ~ W J ~ - C Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ° 8 am ~ ° C7 u. > i /\ ~ ;'/ v,''y , i~ ~ rj u ~ . {/ ~~I NO' tI; ~iVe ~,., ~~ n iCo z " 7 ~~/ iz~ ~ ~ U A ~~7 "' Win.. / t ~ ~oPO ~:. ~~°RN~^s~~ ~ '~ I _ •"~A~' w,~ ~~ ? t ~'~~: ' °~ : ~ , ~ m y 1 CJ,j~~,/C~7 4"r Q a ,., .'.i ' 1 1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ U Z 4 i 1 L u Qo..~ a a ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~iF. a 1e~ V ~~ { G a _` /J b G 'F} lY/f ~ :~ ~ ' q c ' ~`4 ~ s ,z ~ `_ °, ~ ~~` `. Q // ~ ` ~ \ ~ N ~} \ y c.~~_ Z ~, i i a / ~ - ~' ~°k>e A'> .''~~ y PO ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~i h ~ Pis ~~~ ~ ~ ~ r f ~i ~ ~ ~y~a' i I \S~ r/ ~ ti i O impacts within the following areas: Seismic Safety, Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality; Wildlife/Vegetation; and possibly Agriculture and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. Impacts of this Alternative would be reduced and which can be quantified occur in the following azeas: Open Snace and Conservation: Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 would eliminate the open space currently found on-site, as would the current Specific Plan proposal. However, the densities proposed by this Alternative do not exceed the site's SWAP designations of "2-5 d.u./acre" and "8-16 d.u./acre". The current project proposes areas with densities of 5.2 d.u./acre and 17 d.u./acre. Circulation: In order to estimate traffic impacts associated with Reduced Density Alternative No. 1, the following calculations were performed: Units/ Generation Total Trips Land Use Net Acres Rate Per Dav Single Family Residential 86 units 10.0 trips/d.u. 860 Multi-Family Residential 303 units 6.6 trips/d.u. 2,000 O Commercial 10.0 acres 800 trips/acre 8,000* Commercial/Office 9.3 acres 200 trips/acre 1.860* Total 12,720 The Traffic Study eliminates roadway acreage from the size of Commercial and Office areas prior to performing the trip per acre calculations. For example, the 10.4 acres of commercial/ office use is reduced to 9.3 acres after removing an estimated 1.1 acres for roads. This Alternative represents a decrease of 3,464 vehicle trips per day, or a 21.4% decrease compared to the 16,184 vehicle trips generated by the current project proposal. The Traffic Engineer agrees with this estimate and the manner in which it is calculated, i.e. an assumed decrease in vehicle trips directly proportional to the decrease in the number of dwelling units associated with this Alternative. It is anticipated that the on-site circulation system proposed by Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 will be adequate to accommodate these trips without any adverse impacts. This decrease is not anticipated to result in any significantly decreased off-site project impacts compared to the current project proposal. A 21.4% decrease in automobile trips will incrementally reduce impacts O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.LR. NO. 348 V-180 on affected intersections in the project area. This decrease can be translated directly to O impacts related to the existing condition plus project scenario. However, when applied to the cumulative (Year 2000) traffic scenario, little in the way of significant traffic reductions occur. According to the Traffic Engineer, in scenarios where the project site generates fewer trips, the reserve capacity created by the reduction is filled by trips from other more remote residential developments which would favor using these intersections. As this reserve capacity is used by increases in the more local Campos Verdes trips, the more remote trips chose alternative less congested routes which then become more attractive. It should be noted that the year 2000 improvement needs identified in the Traffic Study (contained as Technical Appendix F) address impacts associated with approved and proposed development in the area. The introduction of the Campos Verdes project would add a small increment of traffic relative to the total projected traffic volumes on the adjacent street network. A comparison of improvement needs with and without the project indicates marginal differences which are primarily related to access considerations at the perimeter of the project and on-site circulation. With the additional roadway/intersection improvements identified in the study, all study area intersections would operate at Level of Service D or better. Noise: The 21.4% decrease in traffic volumes associated with this Alternative will not significantly decrease on- or off-site traffic noise generation compared to the current Campos Verdes project. The construction of fewer units overall will expose fewer project O residents to noise levels exceeding 60 CNEL. However, as with the current project proposal, a more detailed acoustical analysis would be required at the final tract map or plot plan stage in order to determine the height and location of any noise barriers which will be required to mitigate noise impacts. Climate and Air Quality: The 12,720 vehicle trips per day generated by this Alternative will result in 89,040 vehicle miles per day (assuming a 7.0 mile average trip length) compared to the 113,288 vehicle miles per day associated with the current project proposal. While this reduction of 24,248 vehicle miles per day will incrementally reduce total pollutant emissions, as with the project proposal, this represents a significant impact. Public Facilities: Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 proposes 461 fewer residential units (54% decrease) compared to the project as currently proposed. The Commercial, Commercial/Office and Park/Detention Basin remain as proposed by the current Campos Verdes Specific Plan. As a result of the reduction in units, total water demand would be reduced by approximately 276,600 gallons per day, while sewage generation would be reduced by approximately 138,000 gallons per day. Therefore, impacts to the Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District would be reduced by approximately 18%. Impacts and Mitigations relative to Fire and Police Protection would be similar to those discussed in the Draft EIR. Approximately 119 elementary students V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-181 O (Grades K-8) and 129 high school students would be generated by Reduced Density Alternative No. 1. Mitigations for this Alternative relative to school would be similar to those recommended for the current project proposal, including payment of School Impact Mitigation Fees. No school sites aze proposed by the current Specific Plan or by any of the project alternatives. In order to meet Quimby Act and TCSD requirements of 5 acres of local park per 1,000 in population, approximately 5.03 acres of park would be required to accommodate the 1,007 persons generated by this Alternative (assuming 2.59 persons per d.u.). The 13.5 acre pazk/detention basin proposed by this Alternative meets this standard, as does the current project proposal. As with all Alternatives, the project would be required to satisfy Park District standards. This Alternative would result in incrementally reduced demand for electricity and natural gas. REASON FOR REJECTION OF REIDUCED IDENSITY ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 As discussed above, Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 results in incrementally reduced impacts in the area of traffic, noise, air quality, water and sewer demand, schools, and other public utilities and services. However, these incremental reductions do not eliminate any "significant" environmental impacts associated with the current Campos Verdes Specific Plan and is not, therefore, considered "environmentally superior". This Alternative eliminates 341 apartment units and 120 Medium-Low and Medium Density units. The. elimination of apartments restricts the range of "affordable" housing O opportunities which would be available in the project area. Apartments are projected to be needed to provide "affordable" housing opportunities for future employees of the proposed Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Meadows, Winchester Highlands Business Park and other proposed employment centers in the area. This is in accordance with SCAG goals of enhancing the jobs/housing balance of Riverside County. For these reasons, Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 was rejected. d. Reduced IDensity Alternative No. 2 As indicated on Figure V-22, Reduced Density Alternative No. 2, this Alternative proposes 615 dwelling units, as well as 13.5 acres of Commercial use, 10.4 acres of Commercial/Office and a 13.5-acre pazk/detention basin site. Reduced Density Alternative No. 2 assumes development of the site per the middle of the density range permitted by SWAP. (Reduced Density Alternative No. 1 assumes site development per the low end of the density range permitted by SWAP, while the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes development at the high end of the permitted SWAP densitites). The approximately 48.1 acres of the site that are designated for " 2-5 d.u./acre" by SWAP are calculated at 3.0 and 3.5 d.u./acre, for a total of 160 Medium Low and Medium Density units. This is a decrease of 46 Medium Low and Medium Density units compared to the current Specific Plan proposal. The approximately 37.9 acres of the site that are designated "8 - 16 d.u./acre" are calculated at 12 d.u./acre rather than the 17.0 d.u./acre proposed by the current Campos Verdes Specific Plan, for a total of 455 multi- O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIAONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-182 O O c F ~ C U ~ ~' N F d~ °' =°~~' ~ - ~ = ~° ~e. `'_ . ~ z _ ~~~=z - z ~ 5= Qo ~ Z ~ U ~ n ~ ~~_ _ _ a `~ O C.~ U N ~~ W 'u ~ 4 ' J (, ~ ~ °O= ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ C7 r, ro ('~ ~ W O ~ ~ ~ g o o vi ~ ^ J ie a F ll > 1 /~/ /'/ ''~/ / ~ ~/ U ~~ ~ O ~~ z ~~^ _, // C U ~ ~' ~F~ U \ ~ 7 C`' ~ \~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ . ~ oPb "`',Stti 1 \~ BNt~ -r,, i ~pV ~ R ~a ,. ~ x a ^ ~ ' ~ g.. '=~', ~r ~~,i 1 ~ <, e ' U ` ~ 3. ~ ~ ~ ~G_ U .~ p_Q C ~ ~ ~y-. ~ dm~a 1 aF `a~ `6 ~ " ~ a`, a--'^ ~ j': Jr' F N ~ ts'QOi~R 1 ~ GP.. ~~ 1 ~ a ~ a ~ t a \\\\ ' ~ xa^ ,; ~- C ±. S ~ /C \.z, ',~ '' ~` v' J ~1~/ q U 9 E V'/ J o ® ~ h C h tl ry s ` U r,~ J//, O Ci ~~ O family units, a decrease of 189 units. The Commercial, Office/ Commercial and park/detention basin site proposed by Reduced Density Alternative No. 2 remain the same as proposed by the current project proposal. The 615 dwelling units proposed by this Alternative is a reduction of 235 units (27.6% reduction) compared to the current project proposal. This Alternative would require Specific Plan approvals, as does the current Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The level of development (615 dwelling units and 23.9 acres of commercial of the use) associated with this Alternative results in reduction in the general extent of project grading and site disturbance as compared to those associated with the proposed project. Grading necessary for provision of 615 dwelling units as well as 13.5 acres of Commercial use, 10.4 acres of Commercial/Office and a 13.5 acre park site will likely disrupt a large portion of the project site. However, the reduction in residential density associated with this Alternative (27.6% reduction) may offer the opportunity for provision of undisturbed, open areas intersperced within proposed residential land uses and the creation of less impervious surfaces as compared to the project proposal. The precise extent of this change is difficult to quantify without a detailed residential site plan for this Alternative. However, this potential to preserve areas within residential uses associated with this Alternative results in potential reduction in impacts within the following areas: Seismic Safety; Slopes and Erosion; Hydrology and Water Quality; O Open Space and Conservation; WildlifeNegetation and possibly Agriculture; and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. Impacts of this Alternative would be reduced and which can be quantified in the following areas: Omen Space/Conservation: Reduced Density Alternative No. 2 would eliminate the open space currently found on-site, as would the current Specific Plan proposal. However, the densities proposed by this Alternative do not exceed the site's SWAP designations of " 2-5 d.u./acre" and "8-16 d.u./acre". The current project proposes areas with densities of 56.2 d.u./acre and 17 d.u./acre.Circulation: In order to estimate traffic impacts associated with Reduced Density Alternative No. 2, the following calculations were performed: O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 34S V-184 Units/ Generation Total Trips O Land Use Net Acres Rate Per Day Single Family Residential 160 units 10.0 trips/d.u. 1,600 Multi-Family Residential 455 units 6.6 trips/d.u. 3,000 Commercial 10.0 acres 800 trips/acre 8,000* Commercial/Office 9.3 acres 200 trips/acre 1.860* Total 14,460 * The Traffic Study eliminates roadway acreage from the size of Commercial and Office areas prior to performing the trip per acre calculations. For example, the 10.4 acres of commercial/ office use is reduced to 9.3 acres after removing an estimated 1.1 acres for roads. This Alternative represents a decrease of 1,724 vehicle trips per day, or a 10.6% decrease compared to the 16,184 vehicle trips generated by the current project proposal. It is anticipated that the on-site circulation system proposed by Reduced Density Alternative O No. 2 will be adequate to accommodate these trips without any adverse impacts. This decrease is not anticipated to result in any significant decreased project impacts compared to the current project proposal. It should be noted that the year 2000 improvement needs identified in the Traffic Study (contained as Technical Appendix F) address impacts associated with approved and proposed development in the area. The introduction of the Campos Verdes project would add a small increment of traffic relative to the total projected traffic volumes on the adjacent street network. A comparison of improvement needs with and without the project indicates marginal differences which are primarily related to access considerations at the perimeter of the project and on-site circulation. With the additional roadway/intersection improvements identified in the study, all study area intersections would operate at Level of Service D or better. Noise: The 10.6% decrease in traffic volumes associated with this Alternative will not significantly decrease on- or off-site traffic noise generation compared to the current Campos Verdes project. The construction of fewer units overall will expose fewer project residents to noise levels exceeding 60 CNEL. However, as with the current project proposal, a more detailed acoustical analysis would be required at the fmal tract map or plot plan stage in order to determine the height and location of any noise barriers which will be required to mitigate noise impacts. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-185 O Climate and Air Quality: The 14,460 vehicle trips per day generated by this Alternative will result in 101,220 vehicle miles per day (assuming a 7.0 mile average trip length) compazed to the 113,288 vehicle miles per day associated with the current project proposal. While this reduction of 12,068 vehicle miles per day will incrementally reduce total pollutant emissions, as with the project proposal, this represents a significant impact. Public Facilities: Reduced Density Alternative No. 2 proposes 235 fewer residential units (27.6% decrease) compazed to the project as currently proposed. The Commercial, Commercial/Office and Pazk/Detention Basin remain as proposed by the current Campos Verdes Specific Plan. As a result of the reduction in units, total water demand would be reduced by approximately 141,000 gallons per day, while sewage generation would be reduced by approximately 70,500 gallons per day. Therefore, impacts to the Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District would be incrementally reduced. Impacts and Mitigations relative to Fire and Police Protection would be similar to those discussed in the Draft EIR. Approximately 192 elementary students and 204 high school students would be generated by Reduced Density Alternative No. 2. Mitigations for this Alternative relative to school would be similaz to those recommended for the current project proposal, including payment of School Impact Mitigation Fees. No school sites are proposed by the current Specific Plan or by any of the project alternatives. In order to meet Quimby Act and TCSD requirements of 5 acres of local park per 1,000 in population, approximately 8.0 acres of park would be O required to accommodate the 1,592 persons generated by this Alternative (assuming 2.59 persons per d.u.). The 13.5 acre pazk/detention basin proposed by this Alternative meets this standazd, as does the current project proposal. As with all Alternatives, the project would be required to satisfy Pazk District standards. There is a possibility that the TCSD may not accept the park site within a detention basin. This Alternative would result in incrementally reduced demand for electricity and natural gas. REASON FOR REJECTION OF REDUCED DENS%TY ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 As_discussed above, Reduced Density Alternative No. 2 results in incrementally reduced impacts in the azea of traffic, noise, air quality, water and sewer demand, schools, and other public utilities and services. However, these incremental reductions do not eliminate any "significant" environmental impacts associated with the current Campos Verdes Specific Plan and is not, therefore, considered "environmentally superior". This Alternative eliminates 189 apartment units and 46 Medium Density units. The elimination of apartments restricts the range of"affordable" housing opportunities which would be available in the project area. Apaztments are projected to be needed to provide "affordable" housing opportunities for future employees of the proposed Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Meadows, Winchester Highlands Business Park and other proposed employment centers in the azea. This is in accordance with SCAG goals of O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-186 enhancing the jobs/housing balance of Riverside County. For these reasons, Reduced O Density Alternative No. 2 was rejected. e. Yncreased ®ffice/Commercial Alternative As shown on Figure V-23, Increased Office/Commercial Alternative, this Alternative proposes the following land uses: Acreaee Density Dwelling Units Medium Low 21.0 3.0 65 Medium 27.1 5.2 141 Very High 15.7 17.0 267 Commercial 13.5 Comm./Office 32.6 Park/Detention Basin 13.5 Roads 9.5 _ 132.9 473 Compared to the current project proposal, this Alternative adds 22.2 acres of Office/Commercial use with a concomitant reduction in Very High Density acreage. This reduces the proposed dwelling unit count from 850 units to 473 units, a decrease of 377 units (44%). The increased Commercial/Office use is located within Planning Area 3. O This Alternative would require Specific Plan approval as well as an amendment to the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) from the present designation of "8 - 16 d.u./acre" in this area, to "Office/Commercial". The extent of project grading and site disturbance associated with this Alternative would be a levels similar to the proposed project. This conclusion is based upon the fact that any reduction in residential density (and opportunities for provision of additional open space on-site) would be lost due to the 22.2 acre increase in Commercial/Office use. Therefore, impacts of the Increased Office/Commercial Alternative would be similar to the currently proposed Campos Verdes project in the following areas: Seismic Safety; Slopes and Erosion; Hydrology and Water Quality; Wildlife/Vegetation; Agriculture and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. Impacts of the Increased Office/Commercial Alternative which would be greater than those associated with the current project are as follows: Open Soace and Conservation: The Increased Office/Commercial Alternative would eliminate the open space currently found on-site, as would the current Specific Plan proposal. However, this Alternative would require an amendment to SWAP, from the present designation of "8-16 d.u./acre" in this area to "Office/Commercial". V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-187 W J O O Q W 4Wz U~~ zvQ 5 ~ s b C ~ 4; ~ e .. D ~ ~ ~ r~ a _ ~ hV 23 C ' Sz `: ~ ` N ~ N .- . ~tl x ~ % ~ o m F~ Qo 0 _ m < N V~ 0 0 ; Z 3 _ a E ~ w n = r = ~~ o ~ ~ q q ~ ~ m rc ~ J S d lL /~' ' / 1 ' U ~, /. 4 O z ~~ r3u J~Q/ CU ; r ase 7 / _ C c I ~~/ a~~ U a ~ ~ ~~ ^~ ~?) ,y ~~ ~~I ~ ~~~~ +5 ~ ' R' -r ' Ra { \~ ANY n - I ~. KEPI ~'ti u GF,NF'~.~'+'p~~ ~ r ~ o .~~c~-r ~ ~ ~.. ~., 3 v ,i'1 _ ' ~ ~, y '~.~ a ~ < 1 1 , . '...::.. ~ F _. L C G G~ ~ '~ I ' U 1 O ~' O ~' '1, ~' n ~i - ate: e h ^'F. C 3 N O f "' -~ Q~SIr.A~ a. ~ w~ ` ~ ~i ~ / i a n ~ / ~ ~ '.a~~ ~;... ~ ~ ~; o Yo 1 - ~G s t / `~~ .. y ~1~% N ~a U a F ~'/ J o ® N /'~ h ~ ) o ~^- C e h n N U C Ci O Circulation: In order to estimate traffic impacts associated with the Increased Office/ Commercial Alternative, the followin g calculations were performed: Units Generation Total Trips Land Use Net Acres Rate Per Dav Single Family Residential 206 units 10.0 trips/d.u. 2,060 Multi-Family Residential 267 units 6.6 trips/d.u. 1,760 Commercial 10.0 acres 800 trips/acre 8,000* Commercial/Office 29.0 acres 200 trips/acre 5,800* Total 17,620 * The Traffic Study eliminates roadway acreage from the size of Commercial and Office areas prior to performing the trip per acre calculations. For example, the 10.4 acres of commercial/ office use is reduced to 9.3 acres after removing an estimated 1.1 acres for roads. O This 17,620 trips generated by this Alternative represents an increase of 1,436 vehicle trips per day, or a .9% increase compared to the 16,184 vehicle trips generated by the current project proposal. It is anticipated that the on-site circulation system proposed by the Increased Office/Commercial Alternative will be adequate to accommodate these trips without any adverse impacts. This increase is not anticipated to result in any significant increased project impacts compared to the current project proposal, although the increased oflice/commercial acreage will increase AM and PM peak hour trips and may increase the need for traffic control. It should be noted that the year 2000 improvement needs identified in the Traffic Study (contained as Technical Appendix F) address impacts associated with approved and proposed development in the area. The introduction of the Campos Verdes project would add a small increment of traffic relative to the total projected traffic volumes on the adjacent street network. A comparison of improvement needs with and without the project indicates marginal differences which are primarily related to access considerations at the perimeter of the project and on-site circulation. Noise: The .9% increase in traffic volumes associated with this Alternative will not increase on- or off-site traffic noise generation compared to the current Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The construction of offices rather than apartments at the intersection of North General Kearny Road and Margarita Road will expose fewer project residents to O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-189 noise levels exceeding 60 CNEL. However, as with the current project proposal, a more O detailed acoustical analysis would be required at the final tract map or plot plan stage in order to determine the height and location of any noise barriers which will be required to mitigate noise impacts. Climate and Air Quality: The 1,436 additional vehicle trips generated by this Alternative will result in a less than 1% increase in vehiculaz emissions compared to the current project proposal. As with the project proposal, this is a significant impact. Public Facilities: This Alternative proposes 377 fewer residential units (44% decrease) and increased office/commercial acreage (22.2 acres) compared to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as currently proposed. As a result of this change, total water demand would be reduced by approximately 159,600 gallons per day, while sewage generation would be reduced by approximately 46,500 gallons per day. Therefore, impacts to the Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District would be slightly reduced. Impacts and Mitigations relative to Fire and Police Protection would be similar to those discussed in the Draft EIR. Impacts to schools would be reduced by approximately 101 elementary students and 125 high school students. Mitigations for this Alternative relative to school would be similar to those recommended for the current project proposal. In order to meet Quimby Act and TCSD requirements of 5 acres of local park per 1,000 in population, approximately 6.12 acres of park would be required to accommodate the 1,225 persons generated by this Alternative (assuming 2.59 persons per d.u.). The 13.5 acre pazk/detention proposed by this Alternative meets this O standard, as does the current project proposal. As with all Alternatives, the project would be required to satisfy Pazk District standards. There is a possibilty that the TCSD may not accept the park site within a detention basin. This Alternative would result in a similar demand for electricity as the current project proposal, while slightly reducing the demand for natural gas. REASONS FOR REJECTION OF THE INCREASEID OFFICE/ CO1VYriIERC7AT, ALTERNATIVE As discussed above, very similar impacts are anticipated with the Increased Office/ Commercial Alternative compared to the current project proposal. However, the elimination of 377 higher density residential units restricts the range of affordable housing opportunities which would be available in the project area. In addition, this alternative is not compatible with the recently adopted SWAP. For these reasons, the Increased Office/Commercial Alternative was rejected. f. Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative As shown on Figure V-24, Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative, this Alternative proposes the following land uses: V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-190 F. F U C ~ M1: a mfr~~_ O ~ O ~ tE <'[ 23 ~ J _ a LL Q m ~ ~ ° ~~ #_ U W o ~ ~v ~" w ~ ~ o Qo ~ c~v U ~ Z ~ ., = _ N .~ LL w a _ & ~ w ~OJ ~ > ° ~ ~ Q < CU ~ ~~~o~moo ~, a LLL > /~ _ / wj ~'/~% i" ~ U ''/nom ac<° I iLe / Z ~1 OU {' ~~ iz„ / ~~= 7{~ ; ~ _ ~p ~~~~~Q i a i ~~ \7 d', 10 ~, t ,.e .fJ,t. a' L G U z eo~° e: m ~. a, O F `v ..l U ~ 6~0~` a~N ~' O I _ . UUp . aSaq Y s, q',~ rv.?.. ~ ~ ~. 1; I'. r ~' i ` . 06 i :oa s ~, P~F CQ U ~6=, ~ \'_ i~ ~ :3 6 d~~ ' 4. -i~., U U ~ ~~ . ~~~ ~~Q i ~ va ~~YQ.~P i ~_~~~~, , `:~ :%V~ \~ / Vri~V ~ J N ` G Q U S 3 d ~ / o 3 ® ` ~r Ci C Ci k O Acreaee Density Dwelline Units Medium Low 21.0 3.0 65 Medium 37.5 3.5 131 Very High 37.9 12.0 455 Commercial 13.5 Park/Detention Basin 13.5 Roads 9_5 _ 132.9 651 Compared to the current project proposal, this Alternative eliminates the 10.4 acres of Commercial/Office use within Planning Area 2, replacing it with Medium Density Residential (3.5 d.u./acre) use. This Alternative, therefore, proposes primarily residential and recreational uses, with a Neighborhood Commercial Center proposed in Planning Area 4. This Alternative also reduces the medium density use in Planning Area 6 to 3.5 d.u./acre compared to 5.2 d.u./acre proposed in the current Specific Plan. The Very High Density use is reduced from 17.0 d.u./acre in the current Specific Plan to 12.0 d.u./acre in the Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative. These residential densities reflect the mid-range of density permitted by SWAP. The Medium Density use in Planning Area 2 is proposed within an area at least partially designated "Office/Commercial" by SWAP and would require an amendment to SWAP (see Figure V-8, SWAP Designations). Even though the total acreage devoted to residential use is increased, the overall dwelling unit O count is decreased from 850 units to 651 units, a decrease of 199 units (23.4%). This Alternative would require Specific Plan approval, as well as an amendment to the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) from the present designation of "Office/Commercial" to"2- 5 d.u./acre". The reduction of residential density coupled with the reduced amount of Commercial/Office use associated with this Alternative (23.4% reduction) will offer the opportunity for provision of undisturbed, open areas intersperced within proposed residential uses and the creation of less impervious surfaces as compared to the project proposal. The precise extent of this change is difficult to quantify without a detailed residential site plan for this Alternative. However, given this potential to preserve areas within residential uses associated with this Alternative results in a potential reduction in impacts within the following areas: Seismic Safety; Slopes and Erosion; Hydrology and Water Quality; WildlifeNegetation; Agriculture and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. Impacts of the Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative which would be reduced and which can be quantified are as follows: Onen Space and Conservation: The Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative would eliminate the open space currently found on-site, as would the current Specific Plan proposal. However, the densities proposed by this Alternative do not exceed the site's O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-192 SWAP designations of "2-5 d.u./acre" and "8-16 d.u./acre". The current project proposes O areas with densitites of 5.2 d.u./acre and 17 d.u. acre. Also, this Alternative would require an amendment to SWAP from "OfficelCommercial" to " 2-5 d.u./acre' within Planning Area 2. Circulation: In order to estimate traffic impacts associated with the Reduced Office/ Commercial Alternative, the following calculations were performed: Generation Total Trips Land Use Units/Acres Rate Per Dav Single Family Residential 196 units 10.0 trips/d.u. 1,960 Multi-Family Residential 455 units 6.6 trips/d.u. 3,000 Commercial 10.0 acres 800 trips/acre 8,000* Total 12,960 * The Traffic Study eliminates roadway acreage from the size of Commercial and Office azeas prior to performing the trip per acre calculations. For example, the 13.5 O acres of commercial use is reduced to 10.0 acres after removing an estimated 3.5 acres for roads. This Alternative generates 12,960 ADT, a decrease of 3,224 vehicle trips per day, or a 19% decrease compared to the 16,184 vehicle trips generated by the current project proposal. It is anticipated that the on-site circulation system proposed by the Decreased Office/Commercial Alternative will be adequate to accommodate these trips without any adverse impacts. This decrease is not anticipated to result in any significant reduced project impacts compaeed to the current project proposal, although the reduction in trips emanating from Planning Area 2, south of General Kearny Road, could improve to Level of Service "C" the intersection of General Kearny Road/"H" Street. It should be noted that the year 2000 improvement needs identified in the Traffic Study (contained as Technical Appendix F) address impacts associated with approved and proposed development in the azea. The introduction of the Campos Verdes project would add a small increment of traffic relative to the total projected traffic volumes on the adjacent street network. A comparison of improvement needs with and without the project indicates marginal differences which are primarily related to access considerations at the perimeter of the project and on-site circulation. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 O V-193 O Noise: The 19% decrease in traffic volumes associated with this Alternative will incrementally decrease on- and off-site traffic noise generation compared to the current Campos Verdes project. The construction of fewer dwelling units overall will expose fewer project residents to noise levels exceeding 60 CNEL. However, as with the current project proposal, a more detailed acoustical analysis would be required at the final tract map or plot plan stage in order to determine the height and location of any noise barriers which will be required to mitigate noise impacts. Climate and Air Quality: The 12,960 vehicle trips per day generated by this Alternative will result in 90,720 vehicle miles per day (assuming a 7.0 mile average trip length) compared to the 113,288 vehicle miles per day associated with the current project proposal. While this reduction of 22,658 vehicle miles per day will incrementally reduce total pollutant emissions, as with the project proposal, this represents a significant impact. Public Facilities: This Alternative proposes 199 fewer residential units (23.4% decrease) and eliminates 10.4 acres of commercial/office use compared to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as currently proposed. As a result of these changes, total water demand would be reduced by approximately 158,920 gallons per day, while sewage generation would be reduced by approximately 90,900 gallons per day. Therefore, impacts to the Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District would be slightly reduced. Impacts and Mitigations relative to Fire and Police Protection would be similar O to those discussed in the Draft EIR. Impacts to schools would be reduced by approximately 57 elementary students and 66 high school students. Mitigations for this Alternative relative to school would be similar to those recommended for the current project proposal. In order to meet Quimby Act and TCSD requirements of 5 acres of local pazk per 1,000 in population, approximately 8.4 acres of park would be required to accommodate the 1,686 persons generated by this Alternative (assuming 2.59 persons per d.u.). The 13.5 acre park/detention proposed by this Alternative meets this standard, as does the current project proposal. As with all Alternatives, the project would be required to satisfy Park District standards. There is a possibility that the TCSAD may not accept the park site within a detention basin. This Alternative would result in a reduced demand for electricity and natural gas. REASONS FOR REJECTION OF THE DECREASED OFFICE/ COMIVYERCIAL ALTERNATIVE As discussed above, reduced impacts are anticipated with this Alternative compared to the current project proposal. However, the elimination of 189 higher density residential units restricts the range of affordable housing opportunities which would be available in the project area. In addition, this alternative is not compatible with the recently adopted SWAP. For these reasons, the Alternative was rejected. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-194 g. Alternative Sites O The possibility of alternative locations for the proposed project was given general consideration, including consideration of areas particularly north and east of the project site. A candidate site within the applicant's ownership which would physically accommodate this proposed project is the Paloma del Sol (Vail Meadows Specific Plan). However, the higher density residential uses proposed by this project would be less compatible with surrounding land uses at that location. Development in these areas was determined to be infeasible for a number of reasons. These reasons include: 1) the most significant constraint upon alternative site location is the difficulty in consolidating ownerships to equate to the size of the proposed Campos Verdes site, as well as compatibility with existing Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designations; 2) the proposed 811 units of Very High Density (apartment use) is intended to provide "affordable" housing opportunities for employees of the proposed adjacent projects, including the Industrial Pazk within the proposed Winchester Meadows and the Regional Center Commercial and Office use proposed by the Temecula Regional Center. None of the alternate sites considered by the Alternative would be capable of providing this type of contiguous access to future employment opportunities; 3) by locating this project adjacent to commercial and employment destinations, the length of automobile trips headed for such destinations is reduced. This would reduce project-related noise, air quality and traffic impacts as compared to developing the project on a less centrally-located property; 4) development of the Campos Verdes project O at its proposed location assists in providing a buffer or in-fill development between proposed high-intensity commercial uses to the west and existing residential uses to the east; and 5) if the project were developed on an alternate site and the subject property were preserved, the on-site project impacts would be eliminated or at least temporarily shifted to an alternate site. Preservation of existing uses on-site would however only preserve limited long-term agricultural potential and a site offering limited aesthetic benefits. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-195 0 4. ~>~®WTa aNDUCUV~ >a~ACTs The proposed project is located on the fringe of a rapidly urbanizing azea of southwest Riverside County, within the newly incorporated City of Temecula. Inasmuch as the site is generally surrounded by future urban uses similar to that proposed here, it is difficult to envision it as having significant growth inducing impacts. In addition, the growth - represented by this project is occurring in accordance with the recently approved Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). Land use development proposals have already been prepazed for vacant, adjacent properties (Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Meadows, Winchester Hills); therefore, the Campos Verdes project cannot be considered a growth-inducement to these surrounding properties. With the exception of minor extensions, the necessary infrastructure is in place. Street improvements will be required to accommodate projected traffic volumes and utilities will require extension. Project residents will incrementally increase demands for public facilities and services. Given that most of these facilities are generally available, this is not considered a growth inducement on a local basis. The project's contribution to demand for these services should be considered as a growth inducement to these services on a regional basis. O O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES S ECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-196 b. THE RELAT%®1VSHIP BETBVEEIV L®CAL SR®RT-TER1Ih[ YTSE ®F 1V%AN'S O ENVIR®N1V%ENT AAIID THE fl'%AIIVTENANCE ®F L®AIG-TERM PR®YDUCTIV%TY. If the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan is approved and constructed, a variety of short-term and long-term impacts will occur on both local and regional levels, as described below: Short-Term Imnacts: Construction-related project impacts .include the generation of noise, dust and air pollution impacting portions of surrounding lands, and portions of the project built in the early phases. Short-term erosion may occur during grading. These disruptions are temporary and can be mitigated to a large degree. Lone-Term Imnacts: The long-term effect of the proposed project and subsequent development will be to gradually convert the site into residential, commercial, commercial/office, and recreational facility sites, as well as access roads. The property is currently vacant and contributes to the overall rural character of the area. The land use conversion to urban use proposed by the project sacrifices any long-term productivity associated with the current use. It is doubtful that the subject property will remain non- urban over the long-term given approvals recently granted for surrounding properties and the site's SWAP designations for urban development. In relation to the conversion process, the characteristics of the physical, biological and human environment will be impacted, as with any form of urbanization, as discussed in Section V.C., Environmental O Hazard and Resources Element (Existing Conditions, Impacts, General Plan Relationship, and Mitigation) and Section V.D., Public Facilities and Services Element. Consequences include increased traffic volumes, incremental degredation of air quality, an incremental increase in the demand for public facilities and services, and in energy consumption. In addition, current populations of some wildlife and vegetation species will be destroyed in those areas proposed for development. Ultimate development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan would create long-term environmental consequences that are connected with any form of urbanization. However, the proposed project has been designed to benefit the City of Temecula and local area job and housing opportunities. It is estimated that this project would increase the areas' housing opportunities by constructing 850 residential units, 644 of which will provide apartments or other more "affordable" dwelling units for future employees of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center and other proposed industrial and business park uses in the area. The proposed project will ultimately provide for long-term productivity which appears to be highly compatible with human needs and growth pressures in the area. The project would provide increased opportunities for residential, commercial, commercial/office and recreational services. The project is also intended to be compatible with surrounding future urban development. V. GENERAL PLAN(ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-197 O 6. %RREVERS%SLE/IRRETRIEVASLE COli~l~TP/iENTS OF ENERGY SUPPLYES ANID ®TDER RESOURCES SDOULID TDE PROJECT BE YriiPLEiVIENTED. The approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan project would constitute the City of Temecula's intent to allow the implementation of the project as proposed, resulting in the following primary environmental changes: 1. A permanent commitment of the site to be physically altered by grading and construction activities will occur to support the proposed home sites, access roads, commercial and office uses, recreational uses, etc. The project represents a commitment of land to urban use, continuing the azea- wide trend toward urbanization of land resources. 3.. The permanent loss of potential agricultural activity will occur. 4. The project will require the permanent commitment of various new materials such as lumber, gravel and sand for the construction phase of the project. Some of these resources aze being depleted throughout the world. 5. The energy utilized for project construction as well as the additional energy O consumed in maintaining the project represent permanent energy commitments. 6. The increased need for public services and utilities are a permanent commitment of these resources. O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-198 7. ®RGANYZATI®NS AND PERS®NS CONSULTED O a. Technical Reports RMW Paleo Associates 23352 Madero, Suite J Mission Viejo, California 92691 Paleontological Resources Assessment, Cameos Verdes Proiect, Rancho California, California, October 19,1989. S. Gregory Nelson Consulting Biologist 24230 Delta Drive Diamond Bar, California 91765 Biological Assessment For Campos Verdes, Rancho California. California, November 3, 1989. Christopher E. Drover .. Consulting Archaeologist O 13522 Malena Drive Tustin, California 92680 An Archaeological Assessment of the Campos Verdes Zone Change, Riverside County. California, October 21, 1989. Wilbur Smith Associates 3600 Lime Street, Suite 226 Riverside, CA 92501 Specific Plan No. 1. Cameos Verdes EIR Traffic Impact Studv. Mav. 1991. Mestre Greve Associates 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 Newport Beach, California 92660 Noise Assessment for the Cameos Verdes Proiect, County of Riverside, Mav 11, 1990. V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFI PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-199 O Natelson Levander Whitney, Inc. 1815 Via El Prado, Suite 308 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Fiscal Impact Analysis Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Riverside County. Mav 29. 1990. Converse Consultants Inland Empire 630 East Brier Drive, Suite 100 San Bernardino, California 92408 Geotechnical Investieation Tentative Tracts 25213. 25214. 25215 Campos Verdes Residential Development. Temecula. California. Mav 10. 1990. NBS/Lowry, Incorporated 40925 County Center Drive, Suite 120 Temecula, California 92390 Preliminary Hvdroloev and Storm Drain Facilities Analysis for Campos Verdes. Mav 16.1990. Unnamed Drv-Wash Bank Improvements Plot Plan 11222. Mav 7. 1990. b. Organizations Consulted Riverside County Fire Department Riverside County Sheriff Department Temecula Union School District Temecula Valley Union High School County of Riverside Waste Management Department Southern California Gas Company Southern California Edison General Telephone Company O V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.LR. NO. 348 V-200 c. %Documents O Air 9uality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports; South Coast Air Quality Management District, revised April 1987. Riverside Countv Comprehensive General Plan; March 1984. Soil Survey. Western Riverside Area. California; U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 1971. 0 V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1/E.I.R. NO. 348 V-201 .~ o; a~ 0 ~®S ~~S SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 EIR NO. 348 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 89020139 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COA~YIv1ENTS O Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Planner: Debbie Ubnoske (714) 694-6400 Prepazed by: DOUGLAS WOOD & ASSOCIATES 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-7977 O AGENCY COMMENTS/STAFF RESPONSES The following agencies commented on the Draft EIR. Each comment received is contained herein and is followed by a summary of the respective concern and the staff response. The following Responses to Comments in combination with the Draft EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments for this project constitute Ute Final EIR for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Pace O Executive Summary .................................................i A. Temecula Valley Unified School District (correspondence dated July 24, 1992) ................................................ 3 B. Rancho California Water District (July 24, 1992) ...................... 8 C. San Bernardino County Museum (July 23, 1992 and August 26, 1992) ...... 11 D. Eastern Municipal Water District (August 21, 1992) ................... 20 E. State of California, Department of Transportation (August 5, 1992) ........ 26 F. Southern California Association of Governments (August 19, 1992) ........ 31 G. South Coast Air Quality Management District (August 21, 1992) .......... 40 O O E~ECUT%VE ~I' The Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15056, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that, "The lead agency (City of Temecula) shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: 1) Responsible agencies; 2) Trustee agencies with resources affected by the project; and 3) Other State, Federal and local agencies which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project. The lead agency may consult directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved." This 45-day public review period (per Section 15087(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines) resulted in the receipt of comments from a variety of governmental agencies and other responsible parties as listed below. As indicated in Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines: 111088. Evaluation of sand ]R~sponse to Comments (a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed O the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. (b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either: O (1) Revise the text in the body of the EIR, or 1 (2) Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. Provided below is a listing of each agency or responsible party who responded to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 348 accompanied by a listing of the respective concerns raised and followed by an indication of the nature of the response to that concern. Specific details concerning the comments made and responses provided can be found in the following Response to Public Comments package. Where revisions or additions to the Draft EIR text are required in response to these public comments, these revisions or additions are indicated in italics within the revised Draft EIR teat. A¢encvlResponsible Party A. Temecula Valley Unified School District B. Rancho California Water District C. San Bernardino County Muceum D. Eastern Municipal Water District E. State of California, Department of Transportation F. Southern California Association of - Governments Concern Refinement of Frieling Schools Information and Additional Mitigation Measures. Updated Water Service Information provided. Additional Site Ezcavation Information provided and a new Mitigation Measure regarding paleontologic resources requested. Updated water and sewer data provided. Traffic figures to be amended and additional traffic data requested. Additional Jobs/Housing Data requested. Traffic Demand Management Program required. Data concerning SIP conformity requested. Nature of Response Additional student generation data and background regarding mitigations are provided in Responses with revisions made to pages II-18 and V-180 of the Draft EIR. Revisions are made to pages II- 28, III-18, V-119 and V-120 of the Draft EIR. Revisions are made to page V- 89, with a revised mitigation measure provided on pages II- 25 and V-91 of the Draft EIR. Revisions are made to pages III-18, V-78, V-119 and V-187 of the Draft EIR. Figure 17 of the Traffic Analysis is revised. Frieling data in the Draft EDZ cited in responses. Additional project employment data provided in Responses. Traffic Demand Management recommendations provided in Responses. O O SIP conformity determination made in Responses. O 2 •q~ ~ BOARD OF EDDOATIOr: 4p pp ~! pp p6~~ o ~ e O B `p, D' Davm 6:rrn O 060VIIbl~l ~J~ri ~~6b~1 Rcs~e':ancernaa, Unified School District aoan r. Soarknar. W dl! SwiOkla V~-s=• BdrOdrd TOOker SUPERINTENDENT -'.e^.ee~ Patricia 8. Novotney. EC.D. July 24, 1992 ~~e~iv~® City of Temecula JUL 2 D 9992 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ~nSrd,.....,..... Attention: Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Senior Planner Re: Campos Verdes Draft Specific Plan No.1 and Draft EIR No. 348 Dear Ms. Ubnoske, We would like to take this opportunity to address the above referenced Specific O Plan/EIR recently received by our office. Specifically, the section referring to schools (page V-130) contains information which is either out-dated or inaccurate. Please be advised of the following corrections: 1. Joan F. Sparkman Elementary School is located at 32225 Pio Pico Road, Temecula, CA 92592. 2. Temecula Middle School is now located at 42075 Meadows Parkway, Temecula, CA 92592. The school listed in this report is Temecula Elementary School. 3. Temecula Valley High Schoot (not Temecula Valley Union High School) has a permanent capacity of 1,928 students, with a current enrollment over 2,200 students. 4. Concerning our Student Generation Factors (SGF), please be advised that these are calculated as follows: Single Family Dwelling for K-5 .36 Single Family Dwelling for 6-8 .20 Single Family Dwelling for 9-12 .24 High Density Dwelling for K-5 .18 High Density Dwelling for 6-8 .10 O High Density Dwelling for 9-12 .12 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (714) 676-2661 Z 3 0 Each of these factors must be calculated individually in order to determine how many students for each school level will be generated. The calculations for students generated may be found on the attached "Campos Verdes Specific Plan Analysis." 5. Regarding mitigation measures, please be advised that general and specific policies proposed for the General Plan include that "New development in the plan area must, along with the State of California, continue to provide the funding necessary to meet the demand for new school facilities in a timely manner. If State monies are not available in a timely manner, new development 3 must provide up to 100% of the cost of school facilities." Furthermore, "Adequate school facilities must be shown to be available in a timely manner before approval will be granted to new residential development including subdivisions, rezones and General Plan Amendments." It should also be noted that the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors recently adopted a O resolution requiring 100°h mitigation for construction of new school facilities. We appreciate you time and cooperation concerning the above referenced information, and please feel free to contact our office should you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Temecula Valley Unified School District ~~ 1~~ Robert Kosslyn Facilities Planning Analyst cc: Mr. Barry Burnell T&B Planning Consultants, Inc. O 4 O O O Land use plan: CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN AiVALYSIS Medium Low Density 65 Dwelling Units Medium Density 141 Dwelling Units Very High Density 644 Dwelling Units Student Generation Factors: Medium Low Density: K-5 23 Students 6-8 13 Students 9-12 16 Students ' Medium Density: K-5 51 Students 6-8 28 Students 9-12 34 Students Very High Density: K-5 116 Students 6-8 64 Students 9-12 77 Students Total Student Generation: K-5 6-8 9-12 Cost Analysis: K-5 190 X 54,061. _ 6-8 105 X 53,424. _ 9-12 127 X 53,435. _ Total Cost: 190 Students 105 Students 127 Students S 771, 590. 5359,520. $436,245. 51,567,355. 5 A. TER/FECUI.A VAl.I.EY URTIF'%EIID ~CYY~Y. IIDYSTRIIC'%' (.July 24, 1992) O Comment 1: Information contained within the Draft EIR within Section V.D.S, Schools is either outdated or incorrect. Updated information is provided below: a Joan F. Sparkman Elementary School is located at 32225 Pio Pico Road, Temecula, CA 92592. b. Temecula Middle School is now located at 42075 Meadows Parkway, Temecula, CA 92592. The school listed in this report is Temecula Elementary School. c. Temecula Valley High School (not Temecula Valley Union High School) has a permanent capacity of 1,928 students, with a current enrollment over 2,200 students. Response: This updated schools information is hereby incorporated into the Final EIR. Page V-130 of the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect these changes in school addresses, student enrollment and capacity totals are noted above. Comment 2: The School District currently utilizes the following student generation factors to estimate project impacts upon existing and/or proposed facilities. Single Family Dwelling for K-5 Single Family Dwelling for 6-8 Single Family Dwelling for 9-12 High Density Dwelling for K-5 High Density Dwelling for 6-8 High Density Dwelling for 9-12 .36 O .20 .24 .18 .10 .12 Each of these factors must be calculated individually in order to determine how many students for each school level will be generated by the proposed project. Response: Based upon these updated student generation factors, the Draft EIR (page V-130) has been revised to read as noted below (revisions underlined). For the sake of this revised student generation analysis, the proposed 65 Medium Low Density and 141 Medium Density residential dwelling units proposed in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan are considered "single family dwellings" with the remaining proposed 644 Very High Density residential dwelling units considered "high density dwellings". "The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes a generation factor of .36 students per dwelling unit for single family dwellings and .18 students per dwelling unit for high density dwellings for grades K-5 and .20 students O ,per single family dwelling and .10 students per high density dwelling unit for grades 6-8. Utilizing these factors, 6 O development of the 850 dwelling units which consists of 206 single-family units and 644 multi-family (hieh density) units proposed by the Campos Verdes Specific Plan could generate an estimated 190 students in grades K-5 and 105 students in grades 6-8." "Grades 9-12 utilize a generation factor of .24 students per single family dwelling unit and .12 students ner hi¢h density dwelling unit, resulting in an estimated 127 high school students generated by the project potentially bringing the estimated total number of students generated by the project to 422." "Since Campos Verdes proposes no school sites the estimated 422 students generated by project development would have to attend school off-site." In addition, page II-18 of the E1B-Matrix Summary has been revised to reflect the new student generation total noted above. Commeat 3: General and specific policies proposed for the City of Temecula General Plan include that "New development in the plan area must, along with O the State of California, continue to provide the funding necessary to meet the demand for new school facilities in a timely manner. If State monies are not available in a timely manner, new development must provide up to 100% of the cost of school facilities:' Furthermore, "Adequate school facilities must be shown to be available in a timely manner before approval will be granted to new residential development including subdivisions, rezones and General Plan Amendments." It should also be noted that the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors recently adopted a resolution requiring 100% mitigation for construction of new school facilities. Resnonae: As noted in Mitigation Measure 2 from Section V.D.5, Schools on page V-131 of the Draft EIR: "2. ,The project applicant shall enter into a binding agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to insure the provision of adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy." On June 30, 1992, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a School Facilities Impact Mitigation Program. This Program requires School Districts to prepare and submit a Plan to the County which provides a breakdown of fees required and how they will be spent. The School Districts are also required to provide an O indication of the nature and extent of efforts to pursue alternative funding sources. This Plan must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. At that point, any affected landowners must adhere to the requirements of this Plan. 7 Legislation has been passed by the California Legislature (SB 1287) and signed into O law by the Governor which restricts the authority of cities to condition legislative entitlements on the provision of school fatalities. Under this measure, the City of Temecula could not condtion the Campos Verdes Specific Plan to require the applit~nt to enter into a school facilities mitigation agreement with the District. The only available means of school mitigation would be the payment of the school fees as provided in SB 1287. The provisions of SB 1287 will apply during 1993, but may be repealed if a Constitutional Amendment (ACA 6) allowing school districts to issue general obligation bonds upon approval of a simple majority fails to be approved by the voters in June, 1994. This legislation may supersede imposition of the mitigat}on measure noted above. O O 7a G°>,fy~CU~I~® dl~~ a 15992 ~ ~ VcoI75CK~C rr~~{{~~pp~~j July 24, 1992 78~ ~~Vh6F~ A ~~~8 Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner City of Temecula, Planning Department Boarder°'""°": 43174 Business Park Drive Cuba F. xo Temecula, CA 92590 Pmidem Dongw v. xmbaty 6r.ViQ Pneideez SUBJECT: Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1 Ralph R. Dilly Naney K Hughes Dear Ms. Ubnoske: JefkeY L Midtler Liu D. Peterson Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has received a copy of the Riebsrd D. Ste°ey Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1 for our review and comments. RCWD requests that the following additions and clarifications be incorporated into Offinn: this document: Johv F. Remifv CenenlMmsger Paragraph 4-a. Water and Sewer Plan A Section III LForl,n 1 Phi1B , , p . °""'°'°`F`"'""~ Description, Page III-18. Tns.°nr E. P. "Rob" Lemoos Dinza. of Engineering The second paragraph states that there are four exlsting wells within the xemeth C. Deily project vicinity. The next sentence should read, "these wells would augment Diracr°r of Opentioru ""'°in'~^an" the District's underlying groundwater well production system as the primary Perry R. Le°ek source of water for this project". - centn6.r Linda M Fregoso Di.mn 6eennrY The second and following sentences In the third paragraph should be modified M~armir4,xidman to read, "Water can be supplied to the Campos Verdes project by connecting & Behrens 1<g~ ~ew.el to the existing 16-inch waterline within Winchester Road and to the existing 16-inch waterline within Calla Piiia Colada. The Campos Verdes project will z be required to construct a 24-inch line within the proposed Margarita Road right-of--way and to relocate the existing waterline within General Kearny Road into the new road alignment. )n addition to these improvements a minimum 8-inch looped network system will be required to serve the entire site. 2. Section V, D, Paragraph 2-a. and 2-b. Water and Sewer, Pages V-119 and V-120. The comments listed above should be incorporated into this section where appropriate. ,~ Baneho Caliloraia Water Diaeriet 28061 Diaz Aced Poet ORce Bm 901] Temmula. Cali(arnie 92569~901i i]1U 616<I01 FA%~]tai 6]6-0615 Debbi Ubnoske O July 24, 1992 Page Two j Thank you for the opportunity. to comment on this document. If there aze any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P. E. Manager of Development Engineering SB:eb77/FEG cc: Bob Lemons, Director of Engineering Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician 9 O >s. %B.E~AlCI$® CA%.Yp"®%lN%~. Wf1TE%8. ID%~TR%CT (July 24, 1992) The Campos Verdes project site lies within the jurisdiction of the Rancho California Water District who is the purveyor of water and reclaimed water service to the area. Comment 1: The following sentence should be added to Section V.D.2, Water and Sewer (page V-119, paragraph 2) of the Draft EIR (addition underlined): "Currently four existing wells are located within the project areas These wells would augment the District's underlvine eroundwater well production svstem as the primary source of water for this proiect." The final two sentences of paragraph 2 on Page V-119 are to be deleted. Response: Pages III-18 and V-119 of the Draft EIR have been revised to reflect the new information provided above. Comment 2: Paragraph 2 of page V-120 of Section II.D.2, Water and Sewer of the Draft EIR should be revised as follows (revisions underlined): "Water can be supplied to the Campos Verdes project by connecting to the existing 16-inch waterline within O Winchester Road and to the existine 15-inch waterline within Calls Pina Colada The Campos Verdes project will be required to construct a 24-inch line within the proposed Margarita Road right-of--way and to relocate the existine waterline within General Kearnv Road into the new road alienment. In addition to these improvements a minimum 8-inch looped network system will be required to serve the entire site. Responses: Page V-120, Paragraph 2 of the Draft EIR as well as page II-26 of the EIR-Matrix Summary have been revised to reflect the new information provided above. O 10 Yaltl I~~tl"Altli~~®~Itl® @+®~71tl 0 ll ItlENJ~~~6JItlE 0 :4 Orange Tree Land Redlsnda, CA 92374 ~ (7141798.8570 July 23, 1992 Temecula Planning Department attn: Debbie.Ubnoske 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 re: CAF4pOS VlSRDBS SPECIFIC PLRYd A7o. 1/BIR Alo. 348 Dear Ms. Ubnoske: COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO~ GENERAL SERVICES GROUP DR. AIIAN D. GRIES JUL°~~°~9 P,egarding paleontologic resources, the draft document mentioned above is correct. A mitigation program is necessary to reduce impacts to paleontologic resources as a result of on-site grading and excavation operations. However, the mitigation measures (as written) on page V-91 should be more inclusive. Since many areas of the proposed project are located on the Pauba Formation, and considering the high potential for these sediments to contain non-renewable paleontologic resources, the San Bernardino County Museum offers these recommendations: A qualified vertebrate paleontologist develop a paleontologic O resource impact mitigation program, prior to ground disturbing activities, along the guidelines of CEQA and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. This program must include, but not be limited to: 1. Monitoring of excavation in areas as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil vertebrates. The monitor mttst be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or la±-ge specimens. 2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification, including washing of sediments to recover small fossil vertebrares. 3. Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with retrievable storage. 4. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, signifies completion o_° the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. O ii O Please do not hesitate to call with any questions yoi~ might have. Sincerely, Scott Springer Site Records Manager, Earth Sciences O O 12 ,RYP D•0. VYVNIY 11YDLY,', J _4 0 yuco ~p o ~~, 8A 08994 c 199419BO.069A Au~uot aa, aeea C19:y off Q®mocu8a atSnl b®bbio 9Ybnoaho a9fl9a ~uoinooa pork brivm $ecs®cu1a, CA 9900 ®~~ ~ ~ d ®2d~A6 08fl4RBQ0 ~gyP ~~ oa. attau a. el: Blsceta 9'®s IPA8d1~Bo~A~ Ai3(~1099LQCa8 ~DRB" C7/SI`~d~G'b'®b7 VIB~AE1~ 1PLR~9oYBG~' ions P9o. 9Yb>aoek®: R®gasfling ous convosoation thin a-osnine, % a® Sauing a copy og the ~urrieta t18flfl ~ua~rangi® oonkainSng kAo CaslHoa vorfloo ~arcag. mho locaSSty e~solofl lioa aithin the iQ9'o~oek gsaraog in Quoation, A9:>ily ro~uoot, IIric Bcokt hao aumaasSaofl a lit$t og some of tho raoso ampostant goaaii opocialone sooovosofl $som thin alto. Yt ahouifl b® no$efl that $hie i® cguito o pso6uakSv® s®gion of rho paubo For~lation anfl any ®sotnnfl 6letusbing aetivitiee occusin® aithin th0 ~sojoct ar®a 99e0~ ko b® aoeosagaaio~ pith o pal®ontologic re®ousoo inpaet mit$BaQSon pso®sam. 'hie pre®sam muo¢ inoi~afle, fiu9: nog; bo istaat~o8 has S. CAonitssin® off ostcavation in asses BQOfttifiefl sa® likoly to O contain paloonkologie gooousaoo by a guali8iofl paloon4;oloeic saonitas. 'Phe taonitos ehoulfl be ®~uipped to aalvaAa ga,abiin 00 9,hoy arm un®askhad to avoifl oonetsuction fl®lay® and to gemove alamelota off ao8lslontla dhioh ass likoly to contain tho ge®ain® of tgmall foe®11 veskobsatoo. `x'ho tnani9;os ~luak bo owpaw®s®~ to k®mposas$ly bait oS ~iV®gt ®QUie~sent to a11oa somova9 of abun9ant or 1as~e ®po®iason®. 3. pr®8aration off roaovorolA o~ocim®na to a gloint 4~i iriontification, inclufling qo®hine of a®diasoneo 9:o rneavor ama11 vwseebrntoo. ~, %flantification ane euga9:ion of opaei9aena Snko a club®ur~ sopdbi9.osy with svtsiovable etorago. 4, psoptasatian off a sopost of 8lnflinA® ttikh an appon8e8 Ates:baed Snvontory og opooieloncs. R'ho Sopost anfl invonkory, e~h®n ®ubmit9:ofl to she appsopsiato E.ea~ Agoncy, digaSBaoa completion off kho gssogsnm 9:0 ~itigato i>mpacto to paleontologic soeouscos. s?lon®® 8o aot h®oitat¢ ko oall ai4h any @uoaQione you mighk have. ®incosoly, arc.. o p Sn®os, O Idite ti®corfle tanager, l3asth Aoioneara •' '~'' ~ 1 ! •. .. .:~ n!t't t'„ Ur•: bi„4 r.i I:AIC:::1:/. Chtt tV. IIH II~It~l~ ,Itn;•1 UI:{Idrl .. ~ i Jn,: r .. .,..•t te,:•,~i IM:I,Y N'~11:1n .1 ,D•Ih nr np•r I:. ,.t. tlt t na eln ill l'. IAU~In .r;.., 13 Jri. i (SAM S.B. COUX7Y MUSEUM BB. Z6. t99Z 11~3Z P. 3 i . ! 1 ROAD CLASSIfICAT10N '~q, MooWduty LIQnl9uly ......~ "p$ Mo6~ulndu)T P . o a Idsennraea em ......... ~~ ~U S. Route S1o.P Route 413: b ~k A9U~321E7',0., CAldii~P . ; O pueelueOU tOGTew Oa/a gUR0164A ID' OVAD1iACb"1.-~' wssso-w l ~ yo~.gl~.R l98f3 . Y 1.. .~ , ''~;• ' s ,. .L ..... ~ .. ' . 14 f pOM S.tl. COUnIY nu~CUn 88.$6.199= 1117 P. 4 fl6 p~B~aA aoOD ®oog~a QAo va9eoAoatoS gon~eno IloenSll~ --48o fb®ssaa a~eQ, r~8a$mA yeu Oan~o bh~jp4~--0366 yyi0aeo~ $Da0 Q®Sa®Ct~Rg $p~®S$aR$ EdO~n$ROB S,) A aa~o agv$ag~eaiaa sroeeg® oS ~ oee ag, (~, fansrAflAa~(LA4n (o£Y~$q®$ mo~ok8)o 0 o~oe$oa gpa®esgH~ g® Savo Be~o or~kiA®g mgt gpo t~`$~@ao 8~v$Rgk®&a$aa. ~8io ®®~~A$}206l00 bDy~ 4AoP6g9SO }.Yo $DYO an~0ag ~~6og@ ®$ ~.D10 apo®$oa flR i~oP~B A~ogi®a, ~ ~ ) to aoeo $sv$A®$AmQnr~ sooos~ mQ l~~aflOAaaoR ggg~g 1~f X80 061AY0=$o0$$O~ t~O~.e ~Aia a~0®i00 Oi~a fdm$ -A6oE1 puoeiouaap~ ~o~op4oB IIso~ X80 8svisg~oas$o~y ¢As ®®®43SSO8foo n8 QiRe6oaSOg EDoa®ano $o $$OROS6S6 nmaAg AAa oa$aioag $R 1~os~8 Eyaosion, a.) A Sago 8gv$ag~eRSnR soeos@ ®S $g p og9. (ggD ~m 8oa0iAg~ 4Bo oasbioaQ=so8os$o6 ®ese~rgoaoo G& ~Ai~ oa~$ROe ~nais, no ~n~igo oS 558i® a$oo oaa® ~bsshoaogg auo met sogoaio® oas8flog ~8nm $Ao s~nROF,oBaa,SOaR. 4,) A ton gooos@ m8 Aprynw-0. kD-o osa0$RO~ ganFe~ gg®~ta~~ aSO~B> 'a8 a Aoaa~ Sao tno4 ~savintao8gf ibo®ae soglos~ofl 8aon R$voso$®o ooe~at~g~, 8~ a~@i~ios, no Savo so®®vorofl Rusoaou^ ag-ooi~oaa o8 Sasgo 8®goo, ~yQ Tanu 4n4c~s3nA~n. O O O 15 r.+f u(t•.. O C. ~AIV BERIVARDIN® C®UNT'S~ MU~EYJR/d (July 23, 1992 and August 26, 1992) July 23, 1992 Correspondence Comment: The Draft EIR is correct in requiring a mitigation program in order to reduce impacts to paleontological resources as a result of on-site grading and excavation operations. The mitigation measures included on page V-91 of the Draft EIR should be more inclusive given the fact that the project is located within the Pauba Formation, which possesses a high potential for sediments to contain non-renewable resources. The San Bernardino County Museum offers the following recommendations: A qualified vertebrate paleontologist should develop a Paleontologic Resource Impact Mitigation Program, prior to ground disturbing activities, along the guidelines of CEQA and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. This program must include but not be limited to: 1. Monitoring of excavation in areas as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain O the remains of small fossil vertebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. 2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification, including washing of sediments to recover small fossil vertebrates. 3. Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with retrievable storage.. 4. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, signifies completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. Response: In response to the request of the City of Temecula, an updated Paleontological Assessment (dated December 7, 1992) was performed for the Campos Verdes project by the firm of RMW Paleo Associates. The complete text of this Assessment is included as Attachment 1 to this Response to Comments package. This revised Paleontological Assessment includes: 1) an assessment of the existing paleontologic resources expected to be unearthed at the site. This assessment was based upon the original field surveys (performed in November, 1988) and new findings O resulting from the site's recent use as a borrow area, 2) given this additional information concerning existing resources, an assessment of potential project impacts, and 3) an updated Mitigation Program in response to the proposed Mitigation 16 Program contained within the San Bernardino County Museum letter. This Paleontological Assessment provides the City of Temecula with an updated assessment O of paleontological resources, the results of which are summarized below. ]Emstin C®nditi®ns As indicated in the revised Paleontological Assessment, the Campos Verdes site contains paleontological eposures assoclated with the Pleistocene age (1.8 million to 10,000 years ago) Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation is a well known fossil producing rock in the Temecula area. Since grading monitoring began in the 1980'x, thousands of ice age fossils have been collected from the Pauba Formation. Monitoring at the site during earlier grading activities produced numerous fossil remains. The earliest recorded fossils collected from the Pauba Formation were a tapir and a horse skull from eposures near 9Vinchester Road and Ynez Road. Recent grading monitoring efforts in the Pauba Formation in the Temecula area have produced significant fossil remains of a variety of terrestrial mammals including: camels, llamas, small and large horses, antelopex, sloths, mammoths, and mastadons. In addition, small fossil vertebrates, such as snakes, shrews, rabbits, and gophers have been collected. Fossil wood collected at a development in Temecula suggested an age of about 33,000 years for some of these fossils. During prior grading activities at the Campos Verdes property, numerous fossils were collected. These included the remains of amammoth, asaber-toothed cat, a tapir, and a giant ground sloth. The abundance of fossils in this rock unit within and near the study area indicates that it has a high O potential for the discovery of fossils. ~roiect IImpstcts Grading operations associated with the development of the Campos Verdes Property will expose fossils. These operations will result in the destruction of fossils, unless proper mitigation measures are undertaken. The destruction of these fossils would represent an adverse impact on the region's paleontological resources. This impact would be significant, because many of the fossil represent new records of foxxils for either the region or the time period represented. Additionally, fossilx from these units could provide information on the age of this formation, which remains in question. Finally, they would supply information on the diversity of life in Southern California during this period. Therefore, the following measures are necesxary to protect the region's paleontological resources. Agitii2ation IOgeasures The following mitigation measures will reduce the adverse impact of development of the Campos Verdes property on the region's paleontological resources to an acceptable (insignificant) level. These mitigation measures have proven successful in protecting paleontological resources while allowing the timely completion of many developments in Southern California. O 17 O 1. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavation, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. 2. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an . exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. 3. Because of the small nature of some fossils present in these rock units, matrix • samples should be collected for processing through fine mesh screens. 4. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are donated to their final repository. 5. All fossils collected should be donated to a suitable repository. 6. Because of the abundance of fossils discovered during the walkover survey conducted during this study, it will be necessary to resurvey the site prior to grading. The soft nature of the Pauba Formation allows it to erode easily, exposing fossils. Therefore, the winter rains may expose significant fossils. If significant fossils are discovered during this new walkover, it will be necessary to collect those fossils. This recommendation is necessary only if the development of this property takes place after O the winter rains. The recommended guidelines for Paleontologic Resource Impact Mitigations noted above have been incorporated into the revised Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Campos Verdes project and replaces previously recommended Mitigation Measures found on pages II-25 and V-91 of the Draft EIR. August 26. 1982 Correspondence Comment: This correspondence underscores the potential for uncovering of paleontological resources by providing a listing of fossil resources recently uncovered on the Campos Verdes site. These resources include remains oL 1) Mammuthus sp. of M. Meridionalis (extinct mammoth); 2) Smiloden fatalis (sabre-toothed cat}; 3) T~irus sp (extinct tapir); 4) Glossotherium harlani (extinct giant ground sloth); and 5) numerous specimens of Equus bautistensis (large horse). It is also noted that the site lies within "quite a productive region of the Pauba Formation and any ground disturbance activities within the project area need to be accompanied with a Paleontologic Resource Impact Mitigation Program". The elements of this Program are listed in the Comment from the July 23, 1992 correspondence provided above. Response: The information provided above in response to the July 23, 1992 O correspondence provides additional detail concerning on-site paleontological resources. In addition, it should be noted that Page V-89 of the Draft EIR states: 18 "The project site is primarily recent alluvium with O exposures of the Pauba Formation. The Pauba is exposed mainly along stream channels, gullies and in road cuts. Recent grading monitoring has produced large numbers of fossil vertebrate animals from this formation within the Rancho California and Murrieta area. Several specimens have been excavated and archived at the Los Angeles County Museum, while several are awaiting study. The earliest recorded fossils were exposed northeast of the Ynez Road and Winchester Road intersection (Mann 1955, Raschke 1988). Over 75 different taxa have been collected from the Pauba Formation and the "unnamed sandstone" unit within the Winchester Hills area." "The Pauba Formation has contained large numbers of significant vertebrate fossils within the area of Rancho California, Murrieta and the Winchester Hills contributing great importance in understanding the Pleistocene paleontology of Southern California and possibly even North America (Raschke 1988)." Section V.C.14, Cultural and Scientific Resources (page V-89) of the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the results of recent excavations on the Campos Verdes O site. The proposed mitigation measures provided in the Response to the July 23, 1992 correspondence es previously noted will mitigate any potential impacts to paleontologic resources found on the project site during site excavation and grading activities. O 19 astern ~unicipa~~ater ~istrict •rd Mrnrgn J. Andrea Schhnge <gd Co•me! Redwine and Sherrill Dirraor of 75r Moropolwn If rrer Din.ia of So•rbern C,liJonri, Doyle F. Baen Trruam Rogers M. Cox Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Temecula, CA 92590 August 21, 1992 Senior Planner Drive RECEIVED AUG 2 ~ 1992 p fly'd............ 8aara al Dnrnorr Rodger D. Sierra, Prnidenr Chesmr C Gilbert. Vice Prnidem W m. G. AWridec Marion V Ashley Craig A. Wencr Senes,ry Mary C Whire SUBJECT: CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 - DRAFT EIR NO. 348 (SCH NO. 89020139) Dear Ms. Ubnoske: Pursuant to your request, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has reviewed the DEIR for Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1 and offers the following comments: The Draft EIR for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, prepared in O July, 1992, focuses on a comprehensive planning effort to address the physical environmental issues and concerns anticipated from the project. The project encompasses 132.9 acres which includes; 86 acres of residential (850 du's), 13.5 acres for commercial uses, 10.4 acres for commercial-office uses and 13.5 acres for a park/detention basin. In October of 1991, the Board of Directors of EMWD approved and authorized the adoption of Resolution No. 2852, renaming EMWD's Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility to the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). Please note the change as it appears throughout the DEIR. Page 0-49, Climate and Air QualitY~_ ExistincLCOnditions, oar. 5 The project site lies approximately two miles northeast of the TVRWRF. Although current operations at this facility do not have a significant impact on the community, the sewage/wastewater treatment plant has the potential for odor problems associated with the nature of its operation. This facility is planned to have an ultimate capacity of 50 million gallons per day (MGD). As O identified in paragraph four of this section, the prevailing winds blow in a southwesterly direction at a speed of 6 knots. At its Si Mail To: Posr Office Box 8300 San Jacinro, California 92581-8300 Telephone (714) 925-7676 Fax (714) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinro . Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet. CA ultimate capacity of 50 MGD, the TVRWRF may have the potential to impact this project. Paae V-73 Omen Sosce and Conservation, Existing Conditions, nar.6 In addition to proposed and approved specific plans adjacent to the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan, the DEIR should consider EMWD's Multi-Purpose Corridor concept when planning for open space. It is the intention of EMWD working with the City of Temecula and other local jurisdictions in our service area to design and develop a regional Multi-Purpose Corridor. This corridor will provide opportunities for water conservation, recreation and interagency use of easements along the Santa Gertrudis Creek, San Jacinto River, Salt Creek, Warm Springs Creek and other water courses within our service area as shown on the attached map. EMWD's Planning Task Force is currently in the process of developing draft "model" language for inclusion into each of the seven required elements of the general plans of local jurisdictions. This draft language may also be incorporated into this specific plan as appropriate. The proposed 13.5 acre park/detention basin should be considered as an opportunity to incorporate this regional concept at a local level. For more information on the Multi-Purpose Corridor, please contact Bill Dyer of our Resource Development Branch at (714) 925-7676, Ext. 336. O 3 Pane v-163 Mandatory CEOA Tonics. Cumulative Imoact Analvsis, O Table Xyi Based on the totals provided in this table, the cumulative impacts of this and adjacent projects will create an average day demand of approximately 24 MGD for domestic water. This average does not include fire flow requirements. The cumulative project impacts will also create an average daily sewage flow of approximately 13.4 MGD. The current capacity of the TVRWRF is 6.25 MGD with the current average daily flow being 4.0 MGD. The impact of these cumulative projects would create the need for a 12.0 MGD expansion of the TVRWRF. This section identifies a water generation factor of 2500 gallons per acre per day (gpad) (RCWD generation factor) for commercial/office/industrial uses. This section also identifies a sewage generation factor of 3000 gpad (EMWD generation factor) for commercial/office/industrial uses. It is very unlikely that these uses will generate more wastewater than they consume. 4 The discrepancy in the amounts is most likely due to differences in O generation factors used by RCWD and EMWD. The generation factors 21 O should be re-evaluated prior to the Final EIR. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Emery Papp at (714) 925-7676, Ext. 511 or myself at Ext. 503. Sincerely, Roger W. Turner Senior Planner RWT:EJP cc: A. Spencer - J. Conacher B. Dyer Attachment P-9245 O O J:\WDRDPROG\WP\PLANNI NG.33\DEIR348 $A578RN HUHICIDAL VAT6R DL77'R2C.7 wren-rrmwa¢ rnnnDwa .. ~ ~ ~I '. ;S ... °Yf~ ,4 YNIGSn ~ °~ .. , 'P I r .. rrer°i sr~s e~jrp BEewCNt surer. i • ~ 1 O r0 I ~o° ~ Q L~ (/~/ b I G .. ~ ~ 1 H.u S°~oao .~ vuisr. . ~ ~ nOliYe e0T .. G ~ ~_ T ~ o ~ ~. o •_ M I Nran run i ~Sq.~. ~ U-; , . y .~fl Inc 1' ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ rEawa aµ ~ 0 ~fo ~.~ ~ :~ .: ..:/ u n . - ~ v ' 1 r .. .1. _.._'-I o ._ "' O f P o a q- ~ ~. ~~ `u ~tiYlit ' ~ poeoeoe~u\ - eeu CREEK IAIR p. 4 1~,• Q : T ' . i r o . •4Q _ 0' •~4 3 08 ~: 6or1 ' 0 , ^4 ~ ,fin ,. ~Q. ~ .. ... 0 bo ~Q< 0 nn ~ lucE ~ e~ O ~ 6ea1D1r! ~ 'U r'I ~ 000 a 4 ~ Q~ ~oee p , ~ j 1 .«.a 4O u ~ m ~ e .LLE r a '' ~~ v ° ~:. e • O 0 r..w.. ... G 00 0 e ~~lLY4R~r9 r.yc°a. D 0 . :. A a~ .~... ~..... ~ ..o W ~ dr°,~ C° ~O rw.r.im. / I~ ~ 3 ~' f-o-a ~~ ~T T ' .1" ~alutr TYPICAL SECTION TRAILS UTILRY CORRIDOR mn~ nn eaeernru VN•517E MAJOR RIVER/ CREEK WATER HARVEST WATER SAN JACINTO RIVER 1 1 HARVEST SALT CREEK eemw nrr are rrr~rrre sr m n.rra ruu rerw a re-nn~ r. v wen re auw mirerr caner. O O O %D. EA5TER1~11~%C%~AI. WATER %D%~T%8%CB' (August 21, 1992) O Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is the purveyor of sewer service to the Campos Verdes project site. Comment 1: The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility has been renamed the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Fatality (TVRWRF). Response: Pages III-18 and V-119 of the Specific Plan/Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the change of name for EMWD's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility as noted above. Comment 2: The project site lies approximately two miles Lortheast of the TVRWRF. Although current operations at this facility do not have a significant impact on the community, the sewagelwastewater treatment plant has the potential for odor problems assocaated with the nature of its operation. This facility is planned to have an ultimate capacity of 50 million gallons per day (MGD). The prevailing winds blow in a southwesterly direction at a speed of 6 knots. At its ultimate capacity of 50 MGD, the TVRWRF may have the potential to impact this project. Response: The environmental documentation associated with the construction O and operation of the EMWD Temecula Valley Regional Water Quality Reclamation Fatality was obligated to. address the potential impacts of and mitigations related to odors emanating from this fatality upon surrounding existing and proposed residential development. The distance between the TVRWRF and the Campos Verdes site would provide a significant means of reducing or eliminating the possibility of odors from this facility reaching the Campos Verdes site. Comment 3: Eastern Municipal Water District is working with the City of Temecula and other local jurisdictions to design and develop a regional Multi- Purpose Corridor which will provide opportunities for water conservation, recreation and interagency use of easements along the Santa Gertrudis Creek, San Jacinto River, Salt Creek, Warm Springs Creek and other water courses without our service area. EMWD's Planning Task Force is currently in the process of developing draft "model" language for inclusion into each of the seven required elements of the general plans of local jurisdictions. The proposed on- site 13.5 acre park/detention basin should be considered as an opportunity to incorporate this regional concept at a local level. Response: This information is hereby incorporated into the Final EIR. Page V-73 of the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the status of these recent land use studies. O Comment 4: The Cumulative Projects listed on Table XVI (pages V-162 to V- 163) of the Draft EIR will generate an average daily demand of approximately 24 million gallons per day for domestic water. This average does not include fire flow requirements. 24 These cumulative projects also generate approffimately 13.4 million gallons per day (MGD) of sewage flow. The current capacity of the TVRWRF is 6.25 MGD O with a current average flow of 4.0 MGD. These cumulative projects will create the need fora 12.0 MGD expansion of this facility. Response: Page V-167 of the Draft EIR has been revised as noted below to reflect the updated estimates cumulative water demand and sewage generation (additions underlined): "Increased expansion in the project area will increase the demand from the Eastern Municipal Water District, the Rancho California Water District and any other affected Districts for sewer and water service. Additional Imes and facilities will be required and improvement districts formed to provide this service effectively to all developments in the area Eastern Municipal Water District estimates that these cumulative proiects will venerate an average daily demand of 24 million gallons per day (MGD) for domestic water (not includinv fire flow requirements) and 13.4 MGD of aewaye flows. The current capacity of the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility is 6.25 MGD with current average flow of 4.0 MGD. These cumulative proiects will create the need fora 12.0 MGD expansion of this facility. Costs associated with the expansion of water O and sewer treatment, distribution and storage facilities will necessarily be borne by the individual developers. Commitments to service must be confirmed by the water and sewer service providersA This revision deletes the four sentences previously included in this paragraph which provided water demand and sewage generation estimates which were discarded in favor of the updated estimates provided by EMWD. It should be noted, however, that several of the projects listed in Section V.H.1, Cumulative Impact Analysis, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Eastern Municipal Water District. Some of these projects outside EMWD boundaries include the Campos Verdes, Temecula Regional Center, and Winchester Hills which lie within the Rancho California Water District. Comment 5: Page V-167 of the Draft EIR contains a water generation factor of 2500 gallons per acne per day (gpad) (RCWD generation factor) for commercial/ office/industrial uses. This section also identifies a sewage generation factor of 3000 gpad (EMWD generation factor) for commerciaUoffice/induatrial uses. It is very unlikely that these uses will generate more wastewater than they consume. The discrepancy in the amounts is most likely due to differences in generation factors used by RCWD and EMWD. Response: The revisions to page V-167 of the Draft EIR as noted in Response to Comment 4 above deletes reference to these generation factors in favor of updated estimates of cumulative water demand and sewage generation provided by EMWD. 25 Srafe of Cal'~fornia ~Nea~,®P®v~duan O ~ State Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research 1400 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Business, Transportation and Mousing Agenry Date August 5, 1992 File No.: 08-RiV-15-6. 6 08-Riv-79-17.3 SCH# 89020139 Attention: Russ Colliau From DEPARTMENT OF TRAMSPORTATIOM District 8 Subject: Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1 RECEIVED auc i o Is92 Ans'd............ O We have reviewed a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1, in the City of Temecula and request consideration of the following: o Figure 17 of the traffic study should be amended to include the PM peak hour service levels on the I-15 ramp intersections with Winchester Road. o The accompanying traffic analysis indicates a need for 8-lane facility on Route 79 between Yne2 Road and Interstate 15. Our Route Concept Report for this segment indicates an ultimate 6-lane facility. Operational feasibility and availability of right of 2 way for the 8-lane facility must be reviewed further and coordinated with Caltrans before it is accepted. Alternative improvements to mitigate the traffic impact at that location must also be considered. o This development should also be conditioned to contribute its fair-share to the needed ramp improvements and structure widening of the Interstate 3 15/Winchester Road Interchange. J o When available, ,p lease send the amended DEIR to: Al Muller Transportation Planning, California Department of P.0. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92402 CEQA/IGR Transportation 26 State Clearinghouse O SCH# 89020139 August 5, 1992 Page Two If you have any questions, please contact Al Muller at (714) 383-4550 or FAX (714) 383-5936. /s/HARVEY J. SAWYER HARVEY J. SAWYER, Chief Transportation Planning CEQA/IGR cc: Randy Watson, County of Riverside ary Thornhill, City of Temecula O O 27 o E. ~TAT~ ®>F ~A~®R~IA, ~I~ART~~ ®>F TI~~P®RTATZ®1~ Comment 1: Figure 17, Year 2000 PM Peak Hour Service Levels With and Without Project within the Traffic Analysis should be revised to include PM peak hour service levels on the I-15 ramp intersections with Winchester Road. Response: Figure 17 of the Traffic Analysis (Appendix F of the Draft EIR) has been revised to indicate PM peak hour service levels at the north and southbound ramp intersections at Interstate 15 and Winchester Road (see attached copy). As indicated therein, the northbound ramps operate at Level of Service "A" within the following three traffic scenarios: Without Project, With Project, and With Project/Without the Temecula Regional Center. The southbound ramps operate at Level of Service "B" within all three of these traffic scenarios. Comment 2: The Traffic Analysis indicates a need for 8-lane facility on Route ?9 (Winchester Road) between Ynez Road and Interstate 15. The Route Concept Report for this segment indicates an ultimate 6-lane facility. Operational feasibility and availability of right-of--way for the 8-lane facility must be reviewed further and coordinated with Caltrans before it is accepted. Alternative improvements to mitigate the traffic impact at that location must also be considered. O Response: The recommended eight-lane section on Winchester Road between I-15 and Ynez Road as contained in Figure V-19, Recoommended Future Circulation System of the Draft EIR would require modifications to the currently built six-lane section. It should be noted that the traffic demand projections which result in the need for this improvement is based on cumulative area development levels which far exceed those assumed in the Assessment District 161 Traffic Study. The funding source for these improvements have not been specifically identified at this time. Comment 3: The Campos Verdes project should be conditioned to contribute its fair-shaze to the needed ramp improvements and structure widening of the Interstate 15/Winchester Road Interchange. Response: As indicated on page V-115 of the Draft EIR, "The developer will be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and on-site improvements as well as a fair-shaze amount towards the implementation of needed off-site improvements. The property owner is a principal participant in the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12." As further indicated in Mitigation Measure 3 on page V-116 of the Draft EIR: O "Additional fair-shaze participation is warranted in the implementation of some of the identified off-site 28 improvements which are not addressed in the current O improvement districts. Recommendations for the basic roadway network configuration, roadway classifications, and number of travel lanes are illustrated in Figure V-19, Recommended Future Circulation System (of the Draft EIR)" O O 29 O O O O _L .. 3 T d 7 LL A 7 a N V C A H tLl N d 9 m N O a E m U a P 30 /ODiDEBfl CDIJFOaflID fWOCIDnOII OF !)OVEafl~EflV 618 West Seventh Street,l2th Floor o Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 = (213) 236-1800 o FAX (213) 236 rruecvmE conDtmTEE gesidcnt tep.. Cilia of San Resnatdim hnryLrogvWe, Mayor Rialn First Vitt President tep.. Imomal County shrSm LSuprrvuor SecoM Vitt Preddntt Cities of Riverside County Judy Nkbstryer. Counafmrarber Asada Vdley ~, President Rep.. Venma County Jahn Flynn. Supervimr os Mgeld County Jibe Antanovieh. JYprrvi,al )mne DonattySuprrvuor FOI'emr6rtt Wfader, Supervuor tivaside Comry sonm YwnQbvt Supervisor San EkrnaNino Caunry Jm MWtla, $upervuor 'idm of Jos Angeles Camry Ropers Bortk0. Mayor Noorovia Ciria of Camry SteLo M CoancrMe,rtbrr 9nwky 'itia of Orange County Irwin F,iad, Mayor Yodu ILma :hies of Vrnosn Cowry lobo Mtlmo. Cauneilmember ima Paula City of Im Aageks Tom Bmdlry, Mayor Matt Raley-Thamm. :awcihwrathrr Hd eermaq Coarrcilmemhrr city of long tkxh [la.ewtt Smith, Cauneifiner„ber rowcY coMMrrrEE clues Hd Croyu. Mawr Pro Tem Wmir+: Chair, inmptmasim strd Commududom August 19, 1992 Ms. Debbie Ubnoske City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1 Draft EIR SCAG Clearinghouse fi RI-55917-IDR Dear Ms. Ubnoske: Thank you for submitting the City of Temecula's Draft EIIt for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan to SCAG for review and comment. As Areawide Clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assisu cities, counties, and other agencies to review projects and plans for consistency with the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP), the Growth Management Plan (GMP), and the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), all of which are included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). SCAG comments are meant to provide guidance within the context of our regional goals and policies. These goals and policies have been adopted in the SCAG regional plans specified above and are based, in part, upon state and federal mandates. While the City is not required to undertake the specific actions recommended by SCAG or other agencies through the Inter-Governmental Review process, there are requirements in state and federal laws for consistency with regional goals and plans. Dunn Ring, MayorPn Tart SCAG recognizes the value and importance of this project t0 the community and `~`~"• ch"r• Faaa the region. Concurrently, along with the benefits of such projects are substantial and Fovimunrent soauGorsen,VicrMaror concerns the City needs t0 address regarding the project's impacts on the Hemn: Chair, Community, _•.mHaa>m surrounding community. Among these issues are jobs/housing balance, Developmeo[ AT-LARGE DELEGATES Rahsst I.rsrk. Mayor iTotswad Oaks Fed Agdor• Mawr Rlchosd KsDy, Mayor Palm Dden O ALTERNATES Impend fomry o Som $hntp. Supervwr a Jae An Wks CamtY o Fd F1a~mL Supemsor and Xmosth Nnhs4 SaPrrwor a Osooge Counp' a GrdN Vt~ora, SsWrrvisor • rule Cwnry o Mdho Donkp Supervisor a Sm Btsrrardim Comry o lorry WoWa, Sapervwr a Vamua County o Vkh7 aovord. Supervisor o Citim of lmprtiel County o w Sonmm. Jr-Mayor Pro Terre Westsoodmd a Cidm of l.m Angeles Comry a Ahhe Imo Couneilmeasker, Wea Hollywood o Cities of Orange Comry o Rnthtlyn Plommer. Courreil- member. Newp,rt Bach o Citim of Rivmide Camry o (Vr~all o Cities of Sm Be,notdino County o F7mar Dfinea. Mayer P,a Ten, lama l~oda a Citks of Vmarn Comry o Jud7 MDuh. CouncilmeaNer. Sim Vdky a Gry of Jas Anal b o RkioN Aktanq Councilmrmber o Rho Wohm; ContciknerMer o Mklrsl Woo. Corurilaust4r a long BarJr lad po• siuoa o Dougtm Drummond, Councilnrmbrr a At large o Gaot4e Nahnao, CouncihneM,er, Torrance o CatWaa Finggnrd, CadteiL„erober, Sm Clemenm o Jud7 W rlph4 Cewcikrrrmber, Chuemoo[ 0 6t-0lrs=lo o JodlsL Johsuma-Wama.la Angelm: Chsrir, Rrgioml Advisory Gareeil 3~6 0 O O Page 2 increased vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled, and air quality consequences. It is SCAG's hope that the City is cognisant of its own responsibility to provide the appropriate incentives, policies, programs, and plans comprising the planning foundation to allow for the support of this project as well as understanding the need for sharing the responsibility for the mitigation of potential negative impacts the project may generate. As the review process moves forward, SCAG may offer additional comments. If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Dove at (213) 236-1861. She will be happy to assist you. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ Eric H. Roth Manager, Intergovernmental Review 818 W. Seventh Slreet,l2lh floor o LOS Angeles, CA 90017-3035 17 (213) 2361800 0 ,e.,.,...w.a.,. YOpOI®OOOJIOL~N FAX (213) 2361825 Page 3 O SCAG COMMENTS ON THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO.1 DEIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Campos Verdes Specific Plan combines wmmercial, mined-residential, office, recreational uses within a comprehensive plan designed to respond to urban trends in the new city of Temecula and neighboring Rancho California areas. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan proposes 850 residential units on 86 acres, 10.4 acres of office uses, 13.5 acres of wmmercial uses and a 13.5 acre park, linked via a planned circulation system and pedestrian walkway. A total of 132.9 acres are proposed for development. Site development is projected over afive-year period. The existing zoning for the site is Rural Residential and Heavy Agricultural. The site has recently been used for dry land farming and in the past was used as pasture. The DEIR states that the Campos Verdes project is located in and wnsistent with the policies of the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP); and, that SWAP is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. REGIONAL PLAN POLICIES O There are a number of policies expressed in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) which may be relevant to this project. Among them are policies which would: o Achieve better job/housing balance at the subregional level through: - encouragement and provision of incentives to attract housing growth in job-rich subregions - encouragement and provision of incentives to attract job growth in housing-rich subregions To the degree possible, achieve a balance, by subregion of the type of jobs with the price of housing To the extent possible, reflect current local jurisdictional policies related to population, housing and employment in the development of job/housing balance targets GROWTH MANAGEMENT Temecula is located in the urbanizing, housing-rich Central Riverside Subregion, The 2010 housing forecast for this subregion is 258,800 units, which is an addition of 168,800 uniu since O ~WCO,®OOTOO,N 818 W. Seventh Street,l2th Floor o Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 t] (213) 2361800 o FAX (213) 2361825 O Page 4 1984. The employment forecast of 179,500 represents 139,700 added jobs between 1984 and 2010. The jobs/housing balance ratio of .45 in 1984 improves to .70 in the yeaz 2010. The jobs/housing balance performance ratio computed by dividing added jobs by added dwelling units from 1984 to 2010 is .83. The DEIR states that this project proposes to increase the areas' housing opportunities by constructing 850 residential units, 644 of which will provide apartments or other more 'affordable' dwelling units for future employers of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center and other proposed industrial and business pazk uses in the area. The DEIR does not state the expected number of job opportunities which would result from the 23.9 acres of commercial and commercialloffice development in the Campos Verdes project. Two options exist for addressing the Growth Management wnformity review requirement for general development projects. Project sponsors may choose between the Jobs/Housing Balance option or the Vehicle Miles Travelled (VM1) reduction option to fulfill that requirement. Under the jobs/housing balance performance ratio option, this project would be expected to create 212 jobs. Under the VMT option, the number of VMT to be reduced by the project in order to be consistent with GMP policies would be 9409. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan/DEIR was reviewed by SCAG in July, 1991. At that time, it was estimated that the project would generate between 7,289 and 8,126 jobs. Such O an increase in employment opportunities would enhance the jobs housing balance ratio for the subregion. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDMI As Areawide Clearinghouse, SCAG requests that TDM programs incorporated as mitigation measures in EIR's or as project conditions include a discussion of the transportation demand management programs for the proposed project which includes the following elements: (1) A detailed description of TDM measures incorporated into the project as mitigation measures or project conditions. (2) Expected effecu and Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Trip (VMT/VT) reduction tazgets for each component of the TDM program. (3) Funding sources for each program component. (4) Identification of the agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the TDM program. (5) An implementation schedule for each TDM program component. The DEIIt discusses Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs intended to maximize future roadway capacities and reduce vehicular travel.. TSM programs mentioned include: O continued enforcement of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Trip Reduction ,..,.,.. ~.~.a..,. ..m.,.e>.e....e.~ 818 W. Seventh Street,l2th Floor o Los A.'eles, CA 90017.3435 0 (213) 2361800 o FAX (213) 2361825 Zd Page 5 Plan; implementation of existing (as well as promotion of future) public transit services; and adoption of ordinances requiring larger employers to implement ridesharing programs. Recommendations: The City should consider strengthening its TDM program as noted above. The City should develop TDM measures which would link the proposed Campos Verdes project with the Temecula Regional Center and other proposed industrial and business park uses in the area. SIP CONFORMITY A project is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) when it has satisfied the following criteria: (1) It improves the subregion's job/housing balance performance ratio or is contributing to attainment of the appropriate subregional VMT target. (2) It reduces VMT/VT to the maximum extent feasible by implementing transportation demand management strategies. (3) Its environmental document includes an air quality analysis which demonstrates that the project will not have a significant negative impact on air quality in the long term. The EIIt should address these criteria and demonstrate the extent to which the criteria are being, or will be, met by the project. All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in accordance with AB 3180 requirements. 818 W. Seventh Street,121h Floor o Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 ~ (213) 236.1800 0 ,e.,....<......,. YOpO®OOOAmpN FAX (213) 236.1ffi5 O O O O F. 5®UT~RIV CAI.1F'®R1VIA A5~®CIATI®R1 ®F' ~w1rRlvla~lvT~ (SCAQA) (August 19, 1992) Comment 1: (Growth Management) -There are a number of policies in the SCAG Growth Management Plan which are relevant to this project including: o Achieve better job/housing balance at the subregional level through: - encouragement and provision of incentives to attract housing growth in job-rich subregions - encouragement and provision of incentives to attract job growth in housing-rich subregions. o To the degree possible, achieve a balance, by subregion of the type of jobs with the price of housing. o To the extent possible, reflect current local jurisdictional policies related to population, housing and employment in the development of job/housing balance targets. Two options exist for addressing the Growth Management conformity review O requirement for general development projects. Project sponsors may choose between the Jobs/Housing Balance or Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction options to fulflll that requirement. Under the jobs/housing performance ratio option of the GMP, the number of jobs required by the project to be consistent with the GMP policies is 212. The amount of VMT reduction required to satisfy the growth management requirement is 9,409 VMT. The DEIR does not state that either of these options will be employed. Analysis of the number of jobs that will be generated by the proposed 23.9 acres of commercial development will be required in order to make a determination of consistency with the regional growth management policies. Response: The currently proposed 23.9 acres of commercial land associated with the Campos Verdes project will according to the Fiscal Impact Report included as Appendix I to the Draft EIR contain 365,400 square feet of commercial space. Proposed on-site commercial uses will generate employment as delineated below: Use Sg. Ft./Acre Generation Factor Jobs General Retail 365,400 sq.ft. 2.5/1,000 sq. ft. 914 O As indicated above, the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will generate a total of 914 on-site employment opportunities. This represents ajobs/housing ratio of 1.08. Using the jobs/housing performance ratio option noted above, this total, according to the 36 comment received from SCAG, exceeds by 702 or 331% the number of jobs (212 employment opportunities) necessary for the project to be consistent with Growth Management Plan policies. The project's jobs/housing ratio of 1.08 also exceeds the jobs/housing performance ratio of 0.83 for the Central Riverside Subregion. In addition, the proposed Temecula Regional Center, located adjacent to the Campos Verdes project, is estimated to generate a total of 7,289 to 8,126 additional employment opportunities. Such an increase in employment opportunities would enhance the jobs/housing balance ratio for the subregion. Comment 2: (Transportation Demand Management) -SCAG requests that Transportation Demand Management programs incorporated as mitigation measures in EIR's or as project conditions include a discussion of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs for the proposed project which includes the following elements: 1. A detailed description of TDM measures incorporated into the project as mitigation measures or project conditions. 2. Expected effects and Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Trip (VMT/VT) reduction targets for each component of the TDM program. 3. F~mding sources for each program component. O 4. Identification of the agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the TDM program. 5. An implementation schedule for each TDM program component. The DEIR discusses Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs intended to mam**~»e future roadway capacities and reduce vehicular travel. TSM programs mentioned include: continued enforcement of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Trip Reduction Plan; implementation of existing (as well as promotion of future) public transit services; and adoption of ordinances requiring larger employers to implement ridesharing programs. The City should develop TDM measures which link the project with the adjacent Temecula Regional Center and other proposed industrial and business park uses in the area. Reanonae: As indicated in Response to Comment 1 above, the proposed project provides 914 on-site employment opportunities within the proposed 23.9 acres of commercial use on-site. These on-site employment opportunities will exceed the number of jobs (212) required to insure GMP conformity, will reduce a significant number of employment-related automobile trips destined for off-site employment centers. In addition, a significant reduction in commercial related automobile trips will also result due to the commercial center being created on-site. The 16,184 O automobile trips total calculated for the proposed project does not account for this on- 37 O site "trip capture". This total was provided in order to determine a "worst case" assessment of project impacts. The extent of reduction of off-site automobile trips due to the provision of commercial land uses and an elementary school on-site is based upon the assumption provided by the Traffic Engineer that approximately 20% (or 1,972 vehicle trips) of commercial based automobile trips (a total of 9,860 daily trips) will be from on-site residents either working or shopping at these facilities. Given this assumption, a total of 1,972 vehicle trips or 12.1% of the 16,184 "worst-case" trip total associated with the Campos Verdes project will be captured on- site from proposed commercial land uses. According to Figures N-5 through IV-8 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, pedestrian access to on-site commercial uses will be facilitated through the provision of sidewalks linking the proposed on-site commercial and residential. land uses. In addition, the proposed Temecula Regional Center, which is located adjacent -to the Campos Verdes project is anticipated to contain aPark-n-Ride Facility. This facility, if utilized by Campos Verdes residents will eliminate an additional amount of automobile trips which would otherwise be destined for more distant employment destinations. As indicated in Mitigation Measure 6 within Section V.D.1, Circulation and Traffic (page V-118) of the Draft EIR, several Transportation System Management O programs are recommended .for implementation in the vicinity. These recommendations are aimed at the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula with the intent of mam**>i~ing future roadway capacities and reducing vehicular travel during the critical peak hour periods: o The continued enforcement of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Trip Reduction Plan (for major employers in the area) and o The implementation of public transit services such as: express transit into and out of the area during the morning and evening commuter peaks; fixed route local bus service between higher density residential areas and major activity centers; and demand responsive transit services such as dial-a-ride for the lower density and more remote areas. . o Promotion of future public transit through the adoption of appropriate planning ordinances which would require special transit oriented design features to be incorporated into future development projects. O o The adoption of ordinances which would require larger employers in the area to implement carpool and or vanpool programs. Large employers wuld also be 38 encouraged to implement staggered work hours or flex time programs for their O employees. These measures will assist in linking the Campos Verdes project with the Temecula Regional Center and other proposed industrial and business park uses in the area. Comment 3: (SIP Conformity) - A project is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) when it has satisfied the following three criteria: a. It improves the subregion's jobs/housing balance performance ratio or is contributing to attainment of the appropriate subregional VMT target. b. It reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled to the maximum extent feasible by implementing transportation demand management strategies. c. Its environmental document includes an air quality analysis which demonstrates that the project will not have a significant negative impact on air quality in the long term. Response: FYndings of compliance with the three criteria noted above are O provided below: a. The proposed project provides 914 on-site employment opportunities with the proposed on-site 23.9 acre commercial center. These employment opportunities will exceed the number of jobs (212) necessary to insure GMP conformity according to SCAG. b. Transportation demand management strategies (provision of on-site employment opportunities anti pedestrian access) have been integrated into project design to reduce the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles. c. The Air Quality section of the Draft EIR contains a detailed quantification of project impacts based upon worst-case calculation of project-related traffic and vehicle mile generation. O 39 ~9~ $ L,1B~ ~~1~~8 r~if 6~Ff~a~~~~ ~8~4~~~Y 21866 E Oopley Drivo, Diamond Bar, CA 91965.41 a2 (714) 998-2000 August a1, 1992 Ms. Dabble Llbnoake dey oY Tetecula 43i9413ustness pant Drfve 'fl'emeculb C1~ 90013 Dear Ms, Ubaoske: Re: Q7omt®eats on trae Draft ]vnvirommeatal %atpaet sari foe Campos Fleedes ilCAQM]X~ A~C9FA9fl3~3 'the South Coast Air Quality Management SCAQMD (District) is respooaible for adoptit{g, rmp leatentirrg, and onforeiag air quality regulations is the South Coast Air Basin, which includes the proposod project area, SCAQMD reviews and analyzes eavironmentai O doeumenta for projects tha4 stay generate significant air quality impacts, sad thereon advises the load ageacry. SCAQMD has reviewed the Proposed Draft EIIt for the above-mentioned project Based upon our analysis, 6CAQMD has dcterntined that several shoe-term and long-term air quality impacts in the proposed Draft'EIR were sot adequately addressed. Attached is a detailed analyai4 including a disetisaion of SCAQARD findings and recomr:rendatioas, SCAQMD`s c>;mments arc tntended to advl6e the City of Temecula in nddressigg and mItiga~the air quality impacts from the proppotrsed protect. SCAQMD appreciates the opp tb comment on the proposed Draft EIR, and loops forward to reecctvu-g a response to our comments prior to the issuance of project approval. Ef you have say further questions, please contact nnie Day, Program Supervisor, at (714) 396-3055. Sincerely, y 5. Crre Planning Manager twjG:tAD:GB O 40 ~A~MD ~T'AP'iz A!§S»bSS11~19'8' O 3 d~1~P~ 1~~ lIDe6crlp3loa Cattrpos F7erdes is a proposal to develop a mixed ttse project coasistlr~g of 6S0 residential units on @4 acres, iD.4 acres of oHce ttses,133 acres of eomatereial uses and a 13.3 acre ppaarrZL The project to located east of Margarita Road and south oP Winchester Road, in the Clry of Temecula. Air Quality ~ettLtg SCAQMD matatains several elr quality monitoring statloaa in the South Coast Atr Basin. The designated monitoring station for the proposed project area is the Perris Monitoring Station. Axordin& to the latest air quality data colIectefl at the Perris station, the area exceeded state an federal alone standards on 126 and 71 day~s respectively. PM10, which coasisu of fine particles with an aerodynatnic diameter of 10 microns or less, exceeded state standards on 433 percent of the days sampled. Carbon monoxide and nitroggen diode were not monitorefl. The vtolatioa of these state cad federal ozone and P1d10 standards illustrates the severity of the air quality problem in the Perris area. The Draft F.YR pro~~ded a summary of au quality trends from 19!36-1989. The Final EIR should incorporate fire 199D and 1991 air quahry data $om the Perris air monitoring station. A copy of the data is attached for your convemettce. Constr~ss2ioa•AeIated Ate QnaUty impacts O The Draft EIR defines construction related air gnality tmpacts fib short term. Construction related emissions include the exhaust from both construction equipmeat, and the construction crew's motor vehicles, as well as the direct emissions from grading, demolition, aad site prepparation activities. The Draft EIR considered a reasonable mu of equipment 2 which may be found on site during grading activities. While the Drab ETA identified exhaust emissions from construction equtpment and fu~ttive dust, the exhaust emissions from the construction crew's motor vehicles were omitted. Additionally, air emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and asphalts should be cotutdered as construction related itnpacts occurring during the grading and construction operations. operational Air Quality llmpacts The Draft EIR indicates that operational or tong term air quality impacts will Dour from stationary and mobile source emisstons. Mobile sources represent the largest source of emissions due to increased vehicular traffic. Tire operation related emissions associated evtth the proposed project are expected to be 139 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 122 pounds per day of reactive organic ores, 299 ponds per day of oxides of nitrogen and 3 71 pounds pet daYy of particulates. ~ose levels greatly extbed SCAQIVID's levels of signtficance. SCAQMD agrees with the conclusion of the Draft EIR that the au yualiry impacts associated with the Campos Verdes proposed project would he considered sipm6cant and a statement of overriding considerations is required. Consequently, autlgattan measures are required to reduce the adverse impacts to the greatest extent possible. While mitigation measures were idenrified in the Draft EIR, others are feasible and should also be included. O 41 O ~sstalattvo Ale Qttallty l[®gactn The Draft EYYi identified and quaatified the eollecdve effect of both the project in question and other nearby projects. 'The contribution of the related and Propo~d ~rofects will have th D & d i f d i e ra ie n enu n a st~nt5cant cumulattve tmpact. 1Vlitigation meaatues beyond those h A ment ttac EIR. are feasible and shou]d ba included to offset the cumulative impact (see a). Gonsiatenty %Idith ISe~oanl plena Yt is essential that the El'R demonatra~o oonmistanry with the regional plans that dual with large scale environmental problame 6uoh es air quality. The Draft EIR provided ea b did id i id G l pl C enera an ut, not cons er ounty stency with tho Ytivars e analyysis of cons eonsistenry of the proje~x with other applicable plena, including: 1991 Air Quality Management plan; %.oeal Adopted Congestion Management program (impacts on established levels of 6arVleO~~ %tegional Growth Management Plan and any other regional plans that arc applicable to the prolect The project should be analyzed for inclusion of the goals, objectives, assumptions and measures of effeMiveneas contatned within about mentioned regional plans. O project Alteraatlvee The Draft EIIt provided an adequate analysis of alternatives. An av quality impact meth l and assum woos th s m d i i d f h l d l i . e a e ve us ng o o ogy eve ope or eac ternat a analys s was To facilitate review and comparison of the air quality implications and benefits o~ each ~roposal, the City should consider preaeating the information in a wmpazative table ormat. R3itigathm lESeasures The Draft P1It did not provide discussion of which mitigation measures will be implemented, and by whom. Mitigation monitoring procedures and/or techniques were 7 also not discussed or provided to ensure that these measures can and will actually be implemented. %t is essential that such information be set forth in the Final F.IR. Conclnalon SCAQMD staff concludes that the impact analysis is the Draft 1FIR does not adequately address all air quality issues. The Campos Verdes project has the potential to generate slgnificaru construction and operational related adverse air quality impacts as a duect and/or indirect result of project development, construction and traffic generation. Before the EIR is certified, addttionai analysis of atr quality issues as discussed above should be prepared and presented. The City of Temecula should consider the application, of all mtngatton measures identified in the Draft EIR, this assessment, and all other mtngation O measures that are subsequently identified, in order to minimize the air quality impact of the project. 42 AT°1'AC~FIZ' O IPtYi~I~JI'1A8~ PJdI'd`dCrATIORI Ai~ASU$~S ~®S ~1~E5 `llb rnzdac¢ po~dlculat¢ camisaloao frbo~ ~®vs9 t7nd Bnpt~ ttoado. ~s8raeetlon ne69a~tlea, and agrlcelttrta op3Yotlo®6 MTTdGA'IYOIU; o Use low emission mobile and stationary construction equipment (e.g., better coral C reduction engine6?. o Use ~w sulfur fuel for stationary and mobile construction equipment. o Develop teip reduction plan 4A achieve L5 AVR for construction employees. o !A'ater site and clean equipment moraiag and evenirt~ o Spread soil binders oa site, unpaved roads and parking areas. o Apply soil stabilizers according 4n manufactures apeeificatioas, to s1I inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours). o Reestablish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering. o Implement or coartnbute to an urban tree planting program to offset the loss of ezrstiag trees lawt ~t~hae construction site. ~~ L ~L o ploy .COnSu Yl~uon aCtivrtY Ii10T10~i}IPTt teChnl(ltreS, D~i~il as: Q.YtP.nding We eonsttnction period; reduceng the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneouslyy^, increasing the distance. between the emission sources; reducing or changing the ltoun of construction; and scheduling activity during off-p~ak-hours. o Pave construction wads, sad sweep streets if silt u carried over to adjacent public 4horoughfarea o Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved mad curfaemc to 1$ miles per hour or less. o Require a pbased~schedule for construction activities to minitnrao emissions o Suspend grading operations during second stage arnog alerts and when wind spoods ((as mataataaeous gusts) exceed 35 miles per hour. o i~tlasb off trucks leaving the site. o BRaiatain Construction equipment enginmc by keoping them tuned. o Utilize existing power sources (o.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. To nAdue~ sutomobilm onriaaioas by reducing slim nnmber of vehideo drivett to n work sits oa a date baoln: A+ff'CIGATIOAI o Provide sleaa fuel or electric local shuttle and regional transit systems and transit obelters. 0 Provide birycic lanes, storage areas, and amenities. o Ensure effiaeat parkrtrg management {e.g., parking fees). o Provide dedicated parking spaces with electrical outlets or electric vehicles. o Provide prefereatiai parlarrg to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. o Chargge silting lot fees to low oxupanry vehicles o Establis~ teleeommuting programs, alternative work schedules, and satellite work oentera. O 43 O 5fo eixdnce vehlralae ¢nalnalono I~eondh ts~x 9oa lat8arovo~atn: I+/fl'YY4A'ITOId o Conflgum parkigg to miaimiso traffic iatorforonoa o IMinimiao obstruedon of throagb.tra®s lease. o Peovlde n iiaggeYSOa to guide ~o peoperly sad onsuro safoty at construction 6ltea. o Schedule operation6 affecting traffic for off-poak hours. o Develop a traffic plea 4o muttmizo traffic flow iIIterfeeeace from eonstntction pctivitios. Plea may include advance public notice Of muting, use of public rtation, and aatallito arltiag areas wrath a shuttle service. o Sche a Foods mov®mente ~or off-peak traffic hours. o SyaChroatae 4rafflc eignale. o Psnovide adequato ingress cad egress at all entrances to public facllities to miaimizc vehicle ~ at curbsides. o Provido dedteated turn lanes as appropriate. 7b a~aduoe the length oP work tripe while eupandlrta the sapgrly oY af7ordable housing sod ctgating ad turban 4oem that e$ticientl' ntllizee arban inNtastroctua¢ tmd eerroires. IVfITIGATIOAI o Achieve a job balance or equivalent VMT/V1' reduction compatible wdth O the Regional went flan. o Encourage growth iwt~earound activity centers, uaasportation nodes and corridors. o Promote future patterns of urban developmem and land use , ma>dng better use of costing facilities, and promoting mixed use development involving commerdal and residential uses. O 44 '3b mace oeaefostnry eaniaatona of oprtatloa x~alnted eckivlties. o Require development practices which maidmize eneegy conservation as a ~rerequiaite to petmit a~~ro,~l o improve the 4hermal fategtity of buildings, and reduce the thermal load with automated time cloclts or oxup~nt seasons. o Introduce window dlazit~, wallmsulation, and effident ventilation methods. o Introduce efficient hearing and other appliaaces, such as cooking equipment, o mcotporate a eoprtate passive solar ano solar seaters o Llse devices that minimize the oambustioa fossil fuels. o Capture waste ]teat and reemploy it in aosresideatial buildings. o I~andacape with native drought-resistant spades to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar beneSts. '3'o protect sensitive lead Haas 6rom mgioe ooarces oi' air pollution. 0 IdQfiGA'I10A1: o Pate to additional mitigation measures into site design such as the creation of er zones between a potential sensitive receptor's boundary and po-ential pollution source. o ]Require design features, operating procedures, preventive maintenance, operator traitting, and emergency response planning m prevent the release of toric pollutants. O O 45 O 6ir. 5®UTR Q3®A5T AIR QUALITY MAAtAGEMEN%' ID%5TR%CT (August 21, 1992) Comment 1: Air quality data recorded from the Perris Monitoring Station (the nearest air quality monitoring station) during 1990 and 1991 should be used in the Final EIR to establish the existing air quality setting for the project area. Air quality monitoring data at the Perris station indicates that the area exceeded state and federal standards for ozone and PM10 in 1990 and 1991. Response: In 1990, air quality monitored at the Perris Monitoring Station exceeded the state standard for ozone on 116 days, while the state standard for PM10 was exceeded during 32 out of the 61 measurements (52.5%). In 1991, air quality monitored at the Perris station exceeded the state standard for ozone on 128 days and the State standard for PM10 was exceeded during 26 of the 60 measurements (43.3%). Comment 2: The Draft EIR discussed and quantified the exhaust emissions from construction equipment as well as pollutant levels associated with the generation of fugitive dust. These estimates were based upon a reasonable mix of equipment which may be found on-site during construction activities. These estimates should include exhaust from -the motor vehicles utilized by the construction crew. Air emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and asphalts should also be considered to be construction related O impacts. Response: The Draft EIR, on pages V-51 and V-52, quantifies: the amount of fugitive dust generated by the grading of 132.9 acres, emissions associated with the use of heavy construction equipment (two pieces of heavy equipment at one time), and emissions resulting from the export of excess fill dirt from the project site. As indicated on page V-55 of the Draft EIR, "air quality impacts associated with the Campos Verdes project are considered significant adverse impacts (i.e. exceeding SCAQMD thresholds) in the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates and reactive organic gases". Provided below is a quantification of the emissions associated with the motor vehicle use by members of the construction crew. In order to portray a maximum probable level of impact, it was assumed that a maximum of four employees would be travelling to the project site (two equipment operators, one supervisor, and one additional employee) with each having an average round trip length of 20 miles. The table provided below quantifies the amount of pollutants generated by the generation of 80 vehicle miles per day on a daily basis as well as over the entire construction phase of the proposed project (26 weeks). O 46 weeks Personnel Vehicles - 4 (20 miles per round-trip) 1992 VEF (gr./Mile) Crew Vehicular Emissions (Lba/Day) Campos Verdes 28 Construction Crew Vehicular Emissions (Lbs./Dav) O CO HC NOz SOa Particulates 8.900 0.550 1.280 0.000 0297 1.22 0.10 0.23 0 0.052 158.1 12.8 29.3 0 6.8 Nons of these additional emissions totals change the conclusions previously reached in the Draft EIR concerning the significance of air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The use of architectural coatings and asphalts will occur well after the grading activities quantified above are completed. The potential generation of hydrocarbons released during the use of oil based paints and asphalt can be mitigated through the adherence to SCAQMD regulations concerning the use of water-based paints, etc. Comment 3: The primary air quality impacts associated with the Campos Verdes Specific Plan is in the area of stationary and mobile source impacts. O Mobile sources represent the largest source of emissions due to increased vehicular traffic. The operation related emissions associated with the proposed project are expected to be 1,539 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 122 pounds per day of reactive organic gases, 299 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen and 71 pounds per day of particulates. Those levels exceed SCAQMD's levels of significance. SCAQMD agrees with the conclusion of the Draft EIR that the air quality impacts associated with the proposed Campos Verdes project would be considered significant and a statement of overriding considerations is required. Consequently, mitigation measures are required to reduce the adverse impacts to the greatest extent possible. While mitigation measures were identified in the Draft EIR, others are feasible and should also be included. Response: The correspondence from SCAQMD included an Attachment which is titled "Potential Mitigation Measures, Campos Verdes". Provided below is a listing of those additional mitigation measures which relate to long-term stationary and mobile source emissions which are considered to be applicable to and feasible for the Campos Verdes project. o Provide bicycle lanes, storage areas and amenities. o Ensure efficient parking management. . o Configure parking to minimize traffic interface. O 47 O o Synchronize traffic signals. o Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbside. o Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate. These measures have either already been incorporated into the project design (bicycle lanes) or can be incorporated during the site plan review for parking areas of the proposed on-site commercial facilities or other roadway facilities. Comment 4: The Draft EIR identified and quantified the collective effect of both the project in question and other nearby projects. As stated therein, the contribution of the related and proposed projects will have a significant cumulative impact. Mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIR are feasible and should be included to offset the cumulative impact. Response: Within the Attachment to the SCAQMD correspondence titled "Potential Mitigation Measures, Campos Verdes", mitigation measures are provided which relate to cumulative air quality impacts. These measures are listed below: o Achieve a job/housing balance or equivalent VMTNT reduction O compatible with the Regional Growth Management Plan. o Encourage growth in and around activity centers, transportation nodes and corridors. o Promote future patterns of urban development and land use, mating better use of existing facilities, and promoting mixed use development involving commercial and residential uses. The proposed project's conformity to these measures is discussed below. As indicated in the Response to Comment 1 from the Southern California Association of Governments (see Correspondence F of this Response to Comments package), the proposed project will generate a total of 914 on-site employment opportunities which significantly exceeds the number of jobs (212) identified to be consistent with the policies of the SCAG Growth Management Plan. The proposed project is adjacent to the proposed Temecula Regional Center (a 201 acre retail commercial center also containing office, hotel and institutional uses) and other existing and proposed development in the area as well as major "transportation nodes and corridors (Winchester Road, Interstate 15). O The proposed project involves a mix of residential and commercial land uses on- site with ajobs/housing ratio of 1.08 which exceeds the jobs/housing performance ratio of 0.83 assigned by SCAG for the Central Riverside subregion. 48 Comment 5: The EIR must demonstrate consistency with regional plans that deal with large scale environmental problems such as air quality. These plans include: 0 1991 Air Quality Management Plan. o Local Adopted Congestion Management Program (impacts on established levels of service). o Regional Growth Management Plan and nay other regional plans that are applicable to the project. Response: As indicated in the Response to Comment 1 from the Southern California Association of Governments (see Correspondence F of this Response to Comments package), the proposed project exceeds the jobs/housing performance ratio established by SCAG for the Central Riverside subregion as part of the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan and provides 914 on-site employment opportunities which significantly exceeds the number of jobs (212) identified to be consistent with the SCAG Growth Management Plan. The project will also be required to adhere to requirements of any Congestion Management Plan adopted by the City of Temecula. Comment 6: The Draft EIR provided an adequate analysis of project O alternatives. An air quality impact analysis was developed for each alternative using the same methodology and assumptions as applied to the proposed project. To facilitate review and comparison of the air quality implications and benefits of each proposal, the information should be presented in a compazative table format. Response: Provided below is a tabulaz comparison of emissions levels assot3ated with development of various project alternatives considered in the Draft EIR. These emissions levels are compared to those associated with the proposed project as well as the AQMD thresholds identified in the Draft EIR. Vehicle Miles Pollutant Generation (p ounds/dav) Alternative Travelled CO NOs SOs Part. ROG No Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ezisting Zoning 5,530 78 18 3 4 8 Reduced Density #1 89,040 1,210 235 47 58 98 Reduced Density #2 101,220 1,378 287 54 83 109 Increased Office/Commercial 123,340 1,552 302 Bl 72 123 Reduced Office/Commercial 90,720 1,247 242 49 57 99 Proposed Project 113,286 1,539 299 80 71 122 SCAQ]VID THRESHOLDS -- 550 100 150 150 75 O 49 O Comment 7: The Draft EIR did not provide discussion of which mitigation measures will be implemented and by whom. Mitigation monitoring procedures and/or techniques were also not discussed or provided to ensure that these measures can and will actually be implemented. Resnonae: The Final EIR contains a Mitigation Monitoring Program which identifies the Responsible Party, Mitigation Process, and Monitoring Milestone associated with each mitigation measure provided in the Draft EIR. This Mitigation Monitoring Program also reflects revisions or additions to mitigations as a result of comments received on the Draft EIR. O O 50 0 A~°1C'~~ffilY~'Il' fl ~IIDA~7EIID ]P.~II.IE®R17I~IDI[.®GII~AII..~5~~~lY~la1'I' O O 0 PALEONTOLOGICAL 137 ACRES - CAMPOS RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ASSESSMENT VERDES PROJECT CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: DOUGLAS WOOD 6 ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED 567 SAN NICOLA DRIVE, SUITE 301 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 PREPARED BY• RMW PALEO ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED O 23352 MADERO, SUITE J MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (714) 770-8042 FAX (714) 458-9056 PROJECT NUMBER 92-1224 AUTHOR: RODNEY E. RASCHKE CERTIFIED PALEONTOLOGIST 7 DECEMBER 1992 O O INTRODUCTION The following presents the results of RMW's assessment of the paleontological resources of the Campos Verdes project area. The site is southeast of Winchester Road, approximately one mile northeast of Interstate 15, in Temecula, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to assess the known and potential paleontological resources within the study area. Pertinent geological and paleontological literature was reviewed for information on the paleontological resources within and near the study area. A walkover survey of the site was performed by Mr. Rod Raschke of RMW in November 1992. O RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEY A walkover survey of the site was conducted by Rod Raschke of RMW in November 1992. During this survey, exposures of the Pauba Formation created by previous grading activities at the site were examined for fossils. During the survey, two horse teeth, a fragment of elephant tusk, and numerous bone fragments of several different sized mammals were observed at the site. All the fossils were found loose as float materials except for a fragment of a rib from a medium sized mammal, which was in place in an exposure of the Pauba Formation. O 1 O O O '.. STRATIGRAPAY AND PALEONTOLOGY O Exposed at Campos Verdes is the Pleistocene age (1.8 million to 10,000 years ago) Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation was deposited in and along ancient streams and rivers that flowed across the Temecula area during the last "Ice Age". The formation consists of red-brown, poorly to moderately cemented massive sandstone, silty fine to coarse sand with interbeds of clayey sand and clay. The earliest recorded fossils collected from the Pauba Formation were a tapir (Mann 1955) and a horse skull (Raschke 1986) from exposures near Winchester Road and Ynez Road. Recent grading monitoring efforts in the Pauba Formation in the Temecula area have produced significant fossil remains of a variety of terrestrial mammals including; camels, llamas, small O and large horses, antelopes, sloths, mammoths, and mastodons. In addition, small fossil vertebrates, such as snakes, shrews, rabbits,~and gophers have been collected (Morgan 1986; Reynolds 1990). Fossil wood collected at a development in Temecula suggested an age of about 33,000 years for some of these fossils. During prior grading activities at the Campos Verdes property, numerous fossils were collected. These included the remains of a mammoth, a saber-toothed cat, a tapir, and a giant ground sloth. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMPIENDATIONS The Pauba Formation is a well known fossil producing rock O unit in the Temecula area. Since grading monitoring began in the 3 1980'x, thousands of fossils of ice age fossils have been collected from the Pauba Formation. Monitoring at the site during O earlier grading activities produced numerous fossil remains. The abundance of fossils in this rock unit within and near the study area indicates that it has a high potential for the discovery of fossils. This means that grading operations associated with the development of the Campos Verdes Property will expose fossils. These operations will result in the destruction of fossils, unless proper mitigation measures are undertaken. The destruction of these fossils would represent an adverse impact on the region's paleontological resources. This impact would be significant, because many of the fossil represent new records of fossils for either the region or the time period represented. Additionally, fossils from these units could provide information on the age of this formation, which remains in question. Finally, O they would supply information on the diversity of life in southern~California during this period. Therefore, the following measures are necessary to protect the region's paleontological resources. The following mitigation measures will reduce the adverse impact of development of the Campos Verdes property on the region's paleontological resources to an acceptable level. These mitigation measures have proven successful in protecting paleontological resources, while allowing the timely completion of many developments in southern California. 4 O 1. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections Q will depend on the rate of excavation, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. 2. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. 3. Because of the small nature of some fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples should be collected for processing through fine mesh screens. 4. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are donated to their final repository. 5. All fossils collected should be donated to a suitable repository. 6. This recommendation is necessary only if the development of this property takes place after the winter rains. Because of the abundance of fossils discovered during the walkover survey conducted during this study, it will be necessary to resurvey the site prior to grading. The soft nature of the Pauba Formation allows it to erode easily, exposing fossils. O Therefore, the winter rains may expose significant fossils. If significant fossils are discovered during this new walkover, it will be necessary to collect those fossils. If you have any questions or if we can be of additional service do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, Rodney Ra hke Certified Paleontologist O REFERENCES Mann, J.F., 1955. California. Report 43. i Geology of a portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone Calif. Division of Mines and Geology Special Morgan, M., 1988. Paleontological report fossil vertebrate localities in the Pauba Formation, Rancho California. Riverside Co., Calif., Tracts 20735-7-8-9 b 20881. Prepared for Warmington Homes. Ms. on file at RMW Paleo Assoc. Mission Viejo, Ca. Raschke, R., 1986. Final report on the results of paleontological monitoring efforts at Corporate Park V., P.M. 19677, Rancho California. Prepared for Kaiser Development Co. Ms. on file at RMW Paleo Assoc. Mission Viejo, Ca. Robert Reynolds, San Bernardino County Museum. (714) 798-8570. Rogers, T.H., 1965. Geologic map of California, Santa Ana sheet:Calif. Div. Mines and Geology, scale 1:250,000. Scott Springer, Site Records Manager, Earth Science San Bernardino County Museum. (714) 798-8570. Woodford, Alfred, Shelton, J., Doehring, D., and Morton, R., 1971. Pliocene-Pleistocene history of the Perris block, southern California: Geol. Soc. of Amer. Bull. v. 82, p. 3421-3446. O O 6 ~O o;. a~ 0 ~~~~ ~~ ~~i ®~ V1EIE8~[DIE~ SIE~IE~IDFII~ I~B.c~I`T SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 EIR NO. 348 O Lead Agency: CITY OF TEN~ECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (714) 694-6400 Prepared By: Douglas Wood & Associates 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-7977 February 4, 1993 O O O '%'AB%E ®F C®~ A. Introduction and Purpose ..................................... 1 B. Correspondence from the City of Temecula, Department of Public Works (dated August 26, 1992) ............................ 3 C. Correspondence from the City of Temecula, Community Services District (dated August 26, 1992) ............................... 11 D. Additional Revised Mitigation Measures ......................... 12 Attachments A - City Correspondence B - Correspondence dated July 29, 1992 C - Addendum Traffic Issues better dated October 15, 1992 D - CMP Traffic Impact Analysis dated 1Vovember, 1992 E - Basin Drainage Study dated December 4, 1992 F - Addendum Traffic Issues letter dated October 23, 1992 G - Final Traffic Issues Regarding Temectila Regional Center, Winchester Hills and Campos Verdes (February 18, 1993) H - Mitigation Monitoring Program O o ~~~~~ ~~ ~~®~ ~~~~ ~~E~~~~ ~~ A. .®~~~®~~P~®~E The Campos Verdes Specific Plea Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) was circiilated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992. This circiilation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly with any person who has special expertise with reaped to any environmental impact involved The purpose of this Addendum EIR. is threefold: 1) respond to various comments made by the City of Temecula se a result of their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; 21 incorporate recently-prepared technical analyses (in the areas of traffidcirculation and drainagefflooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the concerns raised by the City or as a result of the recently-prepared technical studies into the Mitigation O Monitoring Program for the project (a copy of the revised Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as Attachment H to this Addendum EIR). The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation measures for the proposed project. The City correspondence (dated August 26, 1992 from the City of Temecula, Department of Public BVorks and dated August 26, 1992 from the City of Temecula Community Services District) contain comments on the Draft EIR and is included as Attachment A to this Addendum EIR. This correspondence as well as other City comments also include a significant number of comments directed toward the Specific Plan portion of the Specific Plan/Draft EIR document as well as various tentative parcel and tentative trail maps prepared for the project proposal. Those comments and suggested project revisions which are independent of the Draft EIR will be addressed within separate documentation submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. This environmental information is considered to be an Addendum to the Campos Verdes Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines which states: (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an O addendum to an EIR if: (1) 1Vone of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project O revisions, changes in circumstances surrounding the project, or additional project impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming feasible or available); (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQ~1; and (3) The rho s to the EIR made by the addendum do sot raise important new issues about the significant effects oa the environment. (b) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. (c) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. The City comments received which relate to the Draft EIR are summarized and O followed by their respective response. The actual comment received can be found in the copy of the respective City correspondence all of which are included in their entirety within Attachment A to this Addendum EIR The following Responses contained within this Addendum EIR in combination with the Draft EIR, Response to Comments package, Staff Report and other attachments and technical reports constitute the Final EIR for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. 1 O 2 O 13. C®RR,E~P®NYDERICE 1Fis8®M TIME C%T'g' ®Ic TE1ViECULA, DEPAIEtTMER1T ®F 1PUB%.IC W®~~ (Dated Anguat 26, fl992) Comment 1: The Traffic Analysis included within the Technical Appendix of the Draft EIR requires modification, although it has addressed some of our previous comments. It still needs to deal with the comments of the City of Murrieta dated December 6, 1991 and May 26, 1992 and the County of Riverside, dated December 11, 1991 and June 8, 1992. At a May 4, 1992 workshop with the City of Temecula Planning Commission, the applicant was requested to provide alternative modeling for the North General Kearny Road connection to Nicolas Road (with and without this connection), evaluate any access points on Margarita Road, including bus and high school traffic in the impacts, and identify the specific impacts of this project and describe how they are mitigated and by whom. Response: The City of Murrieta comments from their December 6, 1991 memo were superseded by a Letter of Understanding between Mr. Barry Burnell of TdzB Planning Consultants and Mr. Ben Miaamide of the City of Murrieta (a copy of this letter is included is Attachment B to this Addendum EIR). During ajoint-meeting on August 3, 1992 with Mr. Hank Mohle (City of Murrieta Traffic Engineer), Mr. Doug Stewart (City of Temecula Public Works Department) and Mr. Bob Davis O (Wilbur Smith Associates) procedures were developed and agreed upon for preparation of a supplemental analysis which would address City of Murrieta concerns related to traffic impacts and fair share implementation responsibilities. The results of this analysis are reported in the October 15, 1992 Addendum Traffic Issues letter to Mr. Robert Righetti, City of Temecula, Public Works Department. This analysis is included as Attachment C to this Addendum EIR The issue of the need for North General Kearny connection to Nicolas Road has been studied as part of the analysis for the KemperBedford Urban Core Projects (including Campos Verdes) as well as the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The finding of both assessments indicate the need for at least a two-lane connection. If this connection is not provided in the area build-out scenario, then the heavily used Winchester Road segment between Margarita Road and Nicholas Road would be required to accommodate an additional 8,000 to 9,000 vehicles per day. It should be noted, however, that the need for the General Kearny extension would not be triggered by the Campos Verdes project but by cumulative development at or close to build-out of the City. With regard to project access points along Margarita Road, Wilbur Smith Associates has previously recommended (see Figure A-20a of the June 15, 1992 Traffic Report included within Technical Appendix F of the Draft EIR) two unsignalized restricted access driveways on Margarita Road in addition to the signalized access intersection at General Kearny Road and Campos Verdes Lane. One restricted access O driveway would be located approximately mid-way between Winchester Road and Campos Verdes Lane and would be limited to right-in an right-out movements only. This access would serve the neighborhood commercial center which comprises 3 planning Area 4. The second restricted access driveway would be located O approximately 900 feet south of General Kearny Road and would also be limited to right-in and right-out movements. This access would serve the proposed office park site located in Planning Area 2. The provision of these access points would: greatly enhance site accessibility to and from the two sites for northbound Margarita Road traffic; reduce circuitous travel and turning movements at the General Kearny Road and Campos Verdes Lane intersections; and at the same time minimize disruption and potential conflicts for northbound Margarita Road traffic flows. The construction of a new high school bus maintenance facility within the Winchester Meadows (T.P.M. 26759) project was reviewed in terms of its effect oa the Traffic Analysis. The critical issue is whether the 44 acre school and bus facility would generate more or less traffic than the displaced land uses assumed in the Analysis. Based on standard trip generation rates, the high school and bus facility are estimated to generate approximately 8,200 daily vehicle trips and 750 AM peak-hour trips. Trips during the PM peak-hour of adjacent street traffic would tota1250 or less. The school and bus fatality would displace approximately 75 percent of the originally proposed Winchester Meadoare land-use. The displaced industrial park, retail, and office uses would result in a reduction of approximately 10,750 daily vehicle trips. Ia summary, development of the high school and bus facility would result in reduced daily and evening peak-hour trips. Morning peak-hour trips would remain approximately the same. Specific traffic impacts and implementation responsibilities for mitigation O measures are identified for Campos Verdes in the October 15, 1992 Traffic Issues Addenda letter to the City of Temecula Public Works Department (nee Attachment C to this Addendum EIR) which have been reflected is the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Comment 2: Special attention needs to be paid to the requirements of the congestion management program for our region which is being administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (TCTC) to comply with the requirement of State Legislation AB471 and AB1791. This shall include full review of the Traffic Analysis Documents by RCTC prior to approval of the Specific Plan and the Tentative Maps. Response: A CMP Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Campos Verdes, Winchester Hills, and Temecula Regional Center projects. The CMP TIA report (dated November, 1992) has been submitted to the City of Temecula. A copy of this report is included as Attachment D to this Addendum EIR. Comment 3: Attention should be paid to the consistency of the proposed project circulation and the future General Plan of the City of Temecula. This shall be included in the findings of the City's approval of this project. Response: According to the Traffic Epgineer, circulation aspects of the Campos O Verdes project have been brought into consistency with the Draft Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. 4 O Comment 4: A partially complete Drainage Analysis was originally provided with the Draft EIR. At their May 4, 1992 workshop, the Planning Commission requested that the hydrology studies for both Campos Verdes and the Regional Center be integrated to demonstrate the impacts to the projects and surrounding areas, especially when the flows from these sites reach I-15. In addition to these drainage issues, the new requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board for storm water runoff (1VPDES} should be addressed within the Specific Plan teat along with recommendations for implementation and monitoring. Response: A "DrA~ Basin Study for the Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans" (dated December 4, 1992) has been prepared and submitted to the City of Temecula (a copy of this Study is included ea Attachment E to this Addendum EIR). This Study discusses the following drainage issues: existing drainage facilities and capacities (pages 2 through 5), the proposed drainage system to serve the project (pages 8 through 11), potential floodplain impede (page 11), 1VPDES stormwater runoff requirements (pages 13 through 14) and Conclusions and Recommendations (page 15). As indicated on pages 13 and 14 of the "Basin Drainage Study for Campos Verdes and the Temecula Regional Center", which is included is Attachment F to this Addendum EIR, O "The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) currently administer the NPDES permit regulations. IVPDES permits are issued bq the State under the authority of the EPA to selected industries, construction activities and municipalities. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be required to comply with the 1VPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit as well as any permit issued by the City of Temecula. The Permit must be acquired through a Notice of Intent filed with the State RWQCB. The control of storm water quality by identifying point and non-point contaminates and mitigating these contaminates by the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address the - reduction of contaminates during construction and after the completion of construction are required comply with the Permit." The Study provides a detailed listing of Best Management Practices and criteria for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Comment 5: On page II-15 of the Draft EIR, it is indicated that all roadway segments would operate at a LOS "B" or better, then goes on to explain that some intersections are actually at "E" and "F". Also, the paragraph discussing the intersection of Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue sites to different service levels. Some discussion should also include the improvements from O A.D. 161. 5 Response: One page II-15 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan/EIR, the O reference to Level of Service "B" or better is for the existine plus proiect analysis scenario. The subsequent reference to Levels of Service "E" and "F" are for cumulative development (veer 2000) with proiect and without mitigation analysis conditions. The two statements of impact are not contradictory since they report findings of two significantly different analysis scenarios. The second half of the fifth paragraph under "Impacts" on page II-15 of the Dratt EIR should read "Peak-hour Level of Service "E" could be expected at the intersection of Winchester Road at Ynez Road. Peak-hour Level of Service "F" is expected at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Winchester Road with this scenario". The first sentence of the second paragraph under "Mitigation Measures" of page II-15 as well as paragraph 7 oa page II-34 and paragraph 4 on page V-115 of the Draft should be modified to read (additions underlined) "The property owner/developer is a principal participant in Winchester Assessment District 161 and Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12." The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been amended accordingly. Comment 6: A stockpile plan for all earthwork moved to the Regional Center O site will be required. The last paragraph under "Mitigation Measures" on page II-21 of the Draft EIR, should start out by stating "All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the City of Temecula Grading Standards sect Specifications including requirements for stormwater runoff and erosion control". Response: Paragraph 5 under "Mitigation Measures" on page II-21 and Mitigation Measure 5 on page V-26 of the Draft EIR should be amended as noted above. No revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program are necessary. Comment 7: The possibility of inundation from Skinner Dam is identified in the Dratt EIR, but there is no information provided within the Specific Plan or on the tentative maps as to how this issue is mitigated, nor has an Evacuation Plan been provided. Also, additional geotechnical investigations are to be provided regarding any recently identified faults or fissures which may have been noted during recent grading operations prior to approval of the tentative maps. Response: As indicated on page 12 of the "Drainage Basin Study for Campos Verdes and the Temecula Regional Center" (see Attachment E to this Addendum EIR), "a catastrophic failure of the Skinner Dam would cause flooding over the majority of the Temecula Regional Center and a small portion of Campos Verdes. No residential properties within Campos Verdes will be affected by this potential catastrophe". The O Project Engineer (NBS/Lowry) believes that once the dam inundation boundaries are revised to reflect recent assessment district improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek, dam inundation would ao longer be an issue for either of these projects. The City of 6 O Temecula will condition the Tentative Tract Maps such that an Evacuation Plan, if needed, would be required prior to recordation of the maps or prior to the issuance of building permits. As indicated on page V-19 of the Draft EIR, "Structures shall be designed to withstand earthshalring from the maumum credible earthquake that can be expected as well as secondary impacts resulting from ground shakingr'. Future geotechnical investigations shall be completed prior to tentative trail map approval which provides the detailed construction criteria to insure this protection while in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and City Ordinances. Comment 8: Erosion control shall be maintained at all times once construction begins anywhere on the site. Response: Mitigation measures on pages II-21 and V-26 of the Draft EIR should be amended to read (amendments underlined): "All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the City of Temecula Grading Standards including requirements for erosion control. Standard engineering techniques Wlll minimize the soil erosion and siltation potential to acceptable levels. Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall submit to the City of Temecula for review and approval, an erosion control program which indicates proper control of siltation, O sedimentation and other pollutants. The erosion control program measures will include, but not be limited to, revegetatioa of cut and fill areas, utilization of sediment control devices at construction sites, and convevance of storm runoff from development areas. All drainage will be conveyed in non-erosive drainage devices to suitable disposal points. Energy dissipation and methods for preventing scour and erosion should be part of any drainage improvements." No revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program are necessary. Comment 9: The timing of needed off-site improvements sa well as a definition of "fair share" participation for this project should be discussed. More information is needed as to how these improvements will be affected by the phasing of the project. Response: The issue of off-site improvement timing and more detailed discussion of "fair share" implementation responsibilities are addressed in the October 15, 1992 Traffic Issues Addendum letter to City of Temecula Department of Public Works included as Attachment C to this Addendum EIR. Comment 10: Page II-38, Paragraph 5 and Mitigation Measure 5 on page V-26 of the Draft EIR should be revised to delete reference to Riverside County O Grading Standards and the phrase "during rainy months". The proposed erosion control program discussed therein should include "but not be limited to" the various elements noted. 7 Response: Paragraph 5 on page II-38 and Mitigation Measure 5 on page V-26 O of the Draft EIR should- be amended as noted above. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been amended accordingly. Comment 11: The Campos Verdes site has been utilized as a borrow site. As a result of these activities, significant scientific finds occurred No discussion of these resources is found in the Draft EIR, Response: In response to Draft EIR comments received from the San Bernardino County Museum, an updated Paleontological Assessment (dated December 7, 1992) was performed on the Campos Verdes site by the firm of RMW Paleo Associates. The complete teat of this Assessment is included as Attachment 1 to the Response to Comments package within the Campos Verdes Final EIR.. This revised Paleontological Assessment includes: 1) an assessment of the existing paleontologic resources unearthed at the site. This assessment was based upon the original field surveys (performed in November, 1988) and new findings resulting from the site's recent use as a borrow area; 2) given this additional information concerning existing resources, as assessment of potential project impacts; and 3) an updated Mitigation Program in response to the proposed Mitigation Program contained within the San Bernardino County Museum letter. Updated mitigation measures are reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. This Paleontological Assessment provides the City of Temecula with an updated assessment of paleontological resources, the results of O which are included in the Responses to Comments package within the Campos Verdes Final EIR. Comment 12: The mitigation measure for Scenic Highways impacts involving the provision of a 50 foot setback along all scenic highways does not include a 25 foot setback for the transportation corridor, however, the City has not been requiring a 50 foot setback along Winchester Road since it is only a "possible" Scenic Highway. Response: According to the project applicant, the transportation corridor setback is included within the 50-foot Landscape Development Zone (LDZ). The first paragraph under "Mitigation Measures" oa page II-25 aid Mitigation Measure 1 on page V-87 of the Drag EIR. should be amended as follows (amendments underlined): "1. The proposed Specific Plan design is intended to mitigate any potential impacts to Winchester Road (Highway 79), an Eligible County Scenic Highway. The proposed project places aII existing utility lines underground and will revegetate any exposed soil surfaces. A 50 foot setback along the scenic highways (includine the 25 foot setback for the Transportation Corridor), will be provided and landscaped." The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been amended accordingly. Comment 13: Significant scientific resources were found during the recent use O of the Campos Verdes site as a borrow site. Discussions in the EIR should be updated. 8 O Response: See Response to Comment 11, above. Comment 14: ~Vho shall prepared the Evacuation Plan and when shall it be completed and approved? Response: The Evacuation Plan, if necessary, would be prepared by a qualified Civil Enaneer. See Response to Comment 7 above for additional information regarding the need and timing of the Evacuation Plan. Comment 15: The discussion of drainage facilities in the Draft EIR does not include the fact that the drainage area includes sblue-line stream as shown on the USGS maps. This means any work wt71 require 1603 and 404 permits, as well as the relocation of existing wetland or habitat area. How is this to be addressed by the developer? The existing box culvert under Margarita Road will likely not remain. It will probably be removed and the crossing relocated to provide for the widening of Margarita Road. Response: The Basin DrAI~ Study included a6 Attachment E t0 this Addendum E1R indicates that the existing 10' X 5' Reinforced Concrete Bos will be replaced with a double 6' X 5' Reinforced Concrete Bos facility. As indicated on pages V-82 and V-83 of the Draft EIR within Mitigation Measure 3, O "3. In concert with construction activities within the on-site drainage areas, the California Department of Fish and Game wi71 be notified and consulted pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code Sections 1601- 1603 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with their 404 permit process. This permit process may result in the provision of suitable replacement habitat to mitigate the habitat loss either on- or off-site." This mitigation measure reduces potential impacts to on-site riparian habitats and drainage areas to a level of insignificance. Comment 16: The discussion of Cultural and Scientific Resources on pages V- 89 through V-92 does sot discuss the scientific resources found during the recent use of the Campos Verdes site as a borrow site. Response: See Response to Comment 11, above. Comment 17: Margarita Road is not being constructed as part of Community Facilities District 88-12. Response: This information is hereby noted and incorporated into- this O Addendum EIR. Comment 18: The connection North General Kearny Road to Ynez Road is O now being shown an the preliminary Circulation Element for the City's new General Plan. Therefore, it must be addressed in this analysis. Also, there should be some discussion about the connection of Starling Street to Roripaugh Road and the project. This will impact traffic at Winchester Road and the adjacent subdivision. Response: The issue of the extension North General Kearny Road from Margarita Road to Yaez Road is discussed is our October 23, 1992 Traffic Issues letter to the City of Temecula Department of Public Works which is included in its entirety as Attachment F to this Addendum EIR. The Starling Street connection to the project no longer effists. A connection of Sanderling Way to the project does exist. The June 15, 1992 Traffic Analysis included within Technical Appendix F of the Draft EIR addresses the final on-site circulation system modifications. In this analysis, it was projected that less then 35 vehicles per hour would use the Sanderling Way connection during peak-hour periods. No additional off-site traffic impacts were identified in this analysis. Comment 19: Since the Campos Verdes Loop Road no longer effists, it should be deleted from discussion of future traffic facilities. Response: The removal of the Campos Verdes Loop Road has been reflected in the recently-prepared Traffic Analyses included as Attachments C, D and F to this Addendum EIR.. Comment 20: The discussion of proposed circulation facilities within the Draft E1B contains a recommendation that the access from Margarita for Planning Area 2 should be right-out only. Response: See Response to Comment 1, above for additional detail concernin this right turn only recommendation for Planning Area 2. O 10 O C. C®RRESP®RtDERTCE II~'R'R®1~ T~ C%T~ ®~ T~RRECgJI.~e, C®~ ~ER~'ECE~ EDII~B'dBIICT (Dated Augtast 26, fl9»2) Comment 21: Maintenance of the proposed on-site park wil! be the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District, Riverside County Flood Control ~ 9Vater Conservation District, or the Homeowner's Association. O O Response: This information is hereby noted and incorporated into this Addendum EIR. 11 ~. ADD®~A~R~~~D~A~®~~~ Several revisions to mitigation measures originally contained in the Campos Verdes Draft Environmental Impact Report were necessary in response to comments received from the City of Temecula (as contained in Attachment A to this Addendum EIR). These revisions have been previously noted in the responses to the respective City comments. Tf these changes necessitate revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program, such revisions have also been noted within the respective responses to comments. Several of the technical analyses, which are included as Attachments to this Addendum E1R, contain recommendations which necessitate additional revisions to the mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Provided below is a listing of these additional revisions which were not in direct response to City comments but have also been reflected within the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The fully revised Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as Attachment H to this Addendum EIR. Correspondence dated Julv 29. 1992 (Attachment B) No additional mitigation measures or project recommendations are contained within this correspondence. Addendum Traffic Issues Letter dated October 15. 1992 (Attachment C) The Campos Verdes Specific Plan has been assigned by the Traffic Engineer the following percentage utilization of and percentage implementation responsibility for the off-site circulation improvements noted below. This implementation responsibility for the provision of o&site roadway improvements is intended to mitigate the project's portion of cumulative traffic impacts. These improvements and the project's implementation responsibility are listed below: Improvement 1. Winchester Road interchange overpass widening and currently planned ramp widenings 2. Overland Drive overpass improvements (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road) 3. Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive to Rancho California Road 4.° Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road Implementation Responsibility Assiened to Campos Verdes 0.84% 2.00% 2.25% 0.83% 0 O O 12 O Implementation Responsibility Imnrovement Assigned to CiamD06 Verdes 5.° Four-lane Margarita Road improvement 5.00°k from Solana Way to Winchester Road 6. Four-lane Margarita Road improvement 0.75% from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road 7. Four-lane improvement of Overland Drive 2.50°k from Ynez Road to Margarita Road 8.° Four-lane improvement of General Kearny 21.0% Road from Margarita Road to the easterly Campos Verdes boundary 9. Four-lane improvement of General Kearny 2.25°k Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road 10. Widening of Solana Way from Ynez Road 4.504b O to Margarita Road 11. Campos Verdes access signals on Margarita 100.00% Road and the Campos Verdes access street 12. Signals at the intersections of- Margarita 50.0%°° Road/Winchester Road, Margarita Road/ Overland Drive and Ynez Road/Overland Drive 13. Signals at the intersections of Jackson 25.O~k°° Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road/Solana Road ° On-Site Roadways. °° This percentage implementation responsibility relates to all three Urban Core projects. Specific percentage responsibility by project is not available. Project participation in the circulation improvements noted above does not include any Assessment District contrtbutiona or reimbursements. Implementation O responsibility for off-site circulation improvements noted above has been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program (see Attachment "A" to the Mitigation Monitoring Program). 13 CMP Traffic Impact Analvsis dated November. 1992 (Attachment D) O This Analysis contained Findings which list "programmed and planned CMP roadway improvements". These improvements and the project's assignment of implementation responsibility are noted in detail above. Basin Drainaee Studv dated December 4. 1992 (Attachment E) The proposed Campos Verdes sad Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans along with possible upstream development necessitates the need for improved drainage and detention facility upstream of Yaez Road. The proposed drainage and detention facilities improvements are the recommended systems to convey storm water runoff' through the projects. The proposed drainage system should be constructed prior to or in conjunction with the development of both the Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans. Phasing of the drainage fatalities for Campos Verdes should coincide with the phasing plan as shown is the Specific Plea. The on-site detention basin will be constructed with the project or when the amount of runoff entering the Palm Plaza/ACS poading facility reaches approffimately 1900 tfs. This phasing of provision of drainage fatalities is reflected in revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. O Addendum Traffic Issues Letter dated October 23. 1992 (Attachment F) No additional mitigation measures. or project recommendations are contained within this Analysis. Final Traffic Issues Reear inv Temecula Re:donal Center Winchester Hills and Cameos Verdes dated February 18 1993 (Attachment G) The Traffic Engineer prepared addendum material which addresses issues discussed at meetings with the City of Temecula. This addendum material addresses the off site roadway improvements which need to be constructed in order to adequately accommodate the vehicle trip generation limits set for the first year of Urban Core project implementation as they relate to the Campos Verdes project. As identified in the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan (see Addendum Traffic Issues Letter dated October 15, 1992 included as Attachment C to this Addendum EIR), the following off-site tarculation system improvements would be required to accommodate 1994 background traffic vlus vehicle trip generation limits set for the first year of implementation of the three Urban Core Projects, Temecula Regional Center (TRC), Winchester Hills (6VH), and Campos Verdes (CV). Each improvement is followed by as indication of which project(s) are responsible for each improvement. O o A minimum two-lane improvement (extension) of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road (related to TRC, WH, and CV); 14 O o Implementation of Margarita Road, a four-lane Arterial, from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to BVH only); o The widening of 9inchester Road to six lanes, between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to TRC and Ct~; o The widenlIIg of Ynez Road to 61a hinea, between the Overland Drive alignment and Rancho California Road (related to TRC, WH, sad CV); o Extension of Ynez Road to the Date Street alignment (related to WH only); o Four-lane improvement of General Kearney Road from new Margarita Road alignment to the easterly limit of Campos Verdes project (related to CV only); o The widening of Solana 9Vay to four lanes, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road (related to CV only); 0 New signal installations on 9Vmchester Road at Margarita Road, Nicholas Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to TRC, 9VFi and CV); and O O o The installation of a new signal on Margarita Road at Solana BVay (related to CV only). Each of the above roadway improvements has been related to the individual Urban Core Project(s) which contributes to the need for that improvement. The identified roadway improvements would only be needed if one or more of the related projects actually experience development activity during the first implementation year. Fair share implementation responsibility by the individual Urban Core Projects for the identified 1994 roadway system improvement needs would be as previously assessed. 15 0 ~~~~A 0 0 O MIIHORANDUM TO: Planning Department FROM: Department of Public Works Robert Righetti, Senior Project Manager DATE: August 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Department of Public Works Development Review for the Campos Verne Specific Plan No. 1 The Department of Public Works has reviewed this case and have concerns about several issues. These issues will have a direct bearing upon both the analysis and the recommendations which are contained in the specific plan document and the technical appendix, as well as the configuration of the tentative maps. Our primary concerns center around circulation and congestion management, stormwater runoff and its detention onsite, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESj requirements, and consistency with the City's future General Plan. Our review of the current documents indicates that the applicant has not adequately addressed these issues to date. O It is our recommendation that the following items be completely updated as follows: CIRCULATION The traffic analysis included within the technical appendix is still in need of modification, although it has addressed some of our previous comments from memos dated January 12, 1992, April 6, 1992 (Addendum). Tt still needs to deal with the comments of the City of Murrieta dated December 6, 1991 and May 26, 1992 and the County of Riverside, dated December 11, 1991 and June 8, 1992. Also, at a May 4, 1992 workshop with the City of Temecula Planning Commission, the applicant was requested to provide alternative modeling for the North General Kearny connection to Nicolas Road (with and without this connection), evaluate any access points on Margarita Road,. including bus and high school traffic in the impacts, and identify the specfic impacts of this project and describe how they are mitigated and by whom. These comments have fully set out the issues to be addressed before these documents are deemed complete. Special attention needs to be paid to the requirements of the congestion management program for our region which is being administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to comply with the requirement of State legislation AB471 and AB1791. This shall include full review of the Traffic Anaylsis Documents by RCTC prior to approval of the Specific Plan and the Tentative Maps. A copy of the Local Agency CMP Handbook is attached to our comments on Winchester Hills Specfic Plan. O Also, attention should be paid to the consistency of the proposed project circulation and the future General Plan of the City of Temecula. This shall be included in the findings of the City's approval of this project. u Campos Verde Specific Plan O August 26, 1992 page two DRAINAGE Staff was not provided with a complete technical appendix that fully addresses the issues related to drainage. A partially complete analysis was provided by NBS/Cowry, but not in a formal presentation format to coincide with the specific plan document. Comments related to the Specific Plan document are noted below. At the May 4th workshop, the Planning Commission requested that the hydrology studies for both Campos Verde and the Regional Center be integrated to demonstrate the impacts to the projects and surrounding areas, especially when the flows from these sites reach I-15. None of this information has been provided to date. It should be noted that the Planning Commission expressed reservations about using the retention basin as a park site. In addition to these drainage issues, the new requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board for storm water runoff (NPDES) should be addressed within the specific plan text along with recommendations for implementation and monitoring. SPECIFIC PLANlEIR DOCUMENT COMMENTS Throughout the document, references to the County of Riverside should be changed O to The City of Temecula where appropriate. Page II-15: The discussion here indicates that all roadway segments would operate at a LOS of "B" or better, then goes on to explain that some intersections are actually at "E" and C~ "F". Also the paragraph discussing the intersection of Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue sites to different service levels. Some discussion should also include the improvements from A.D. 161. This page should be rewritten with input from a revised and updated Traffic Analysis, and remove any typos. Page II-21: Note should be made that a stockpile plan for all earthwork moved to the Regional Center site will be required. The last paragraph under "Mitigation Measures should ~p start out by stating "All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the City of Temecula Grading Standards and Specfications including requirements far stormwater runoff and erosion control." Delete "during rainy months. Page II-31: What is an "evacuation rate?" The possibility of inundation from Skinner Dam is identified, but there is no information provided within the specific plan or on the tentative maps as to how this issue is mitigated, nor has an evacuation route been provided. Also, additional geotechniral investigations are to be provided regarding any recently identified faults or fissures which may have been noted during recent grading operations prior to approval of the tentative maps. Page II-32: O Erosion control shall be maintained at all times once construction begins anywhere on the site. O Campos Verde Plan August 26, 1992 page three Page II-34: This discussion is not adequate in addressing the timing of needed offsite improvements, nor as to what the "fair share" participation means for this project. More information is needed to qualify how these improvements will be affected by the phasing of the project. Also, it's ""Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88- 12," not "Community Facilities AND District." Also correct this typo on page II-15. Page II-38: Under "Slopes and Erosion" paragraph 5, delete reference to "County" and the ~~ phrase "during rainy season." Also, sentence 3 in this paragraph is incomplete. The erosion control program shall "include, but not be limited to" to items noted. Page II-41: q The Site has already been graded as a borrow site. There were significant scientific ~ u finds on the site, but no mention is made of that here. The very first sentence is U untrue per recent observations. Under scenic highway setbacks, please note that the 50-foot setback does not include U the 25-foot setback for the transportation corridor. U O Page III-13: Please note that the improvement of Margarita and General Kearny is attributed to the City, but the developer will be reimbursing the City for all costs . This must be addressed in the text, and a mechanismfor reimbursement worked out. Also not that City is doing two lanes only, and balance of improvements are by developer. Page III-17: This exhibit needs to be modified to identify the box across planning area 2. Also, this exhibit shows an RCB or RCP being connected to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Is this included in A.D. 161? Who will construct this connection and was it included in the design of Santa Gertrudis Creek improvements?. Page III-18: How does the Warm Springs trunk sewer and the Santa Gertrudis trunk sewer serve this system? The exhibit referenced in the discussion shows this combined trunk going west, beyond freeway, on the north side of the creek. Please provide additional information from the district on capacity and service this project. Page III-21: Please indicate the sizes of the lines shown on this exhibit. Page III-22: Please verify who is going to be building what on this exhibit. CFD 98-12 and AD 161.are not proposing to build any lines within the Campos Verde project. Page III-23: O With the understanding that the 15" is already in service and is servicing the community east of the project, we need verification from EMWD that there will be sufficient capacity in the 15" sewer with Campos Verde and the Regional Center. Campos Verde Specific Plan O August 26, 1992 page four Page III-24: This exhibit does not make any sense. It shows flows being split and attached to future lines that must be built by other development. There is no discussion in the text about the timing of this offsite infrastructure. Also, a link from the Winchester Hills project is shown going over to the existing 15" line in Winchester Road. Is this going to take away from the capacity of the line to serve Campose Verde? Please clarify when these lines will be built, by whom and are they sized appropriate or is upgrade necessary. Page III-25: Again, this exhibit is confusing and needs clarification per the above comments. This exhibits indicates that the 15" line is not in yet, but previous exhibits call it existing. Plese make all exhibits consistent. Page III-26: 'Paragraph 2 should be amended to read "2.6 million cubic yards" to make it consistent with page II-41. Staff is aware that significant archaeological material was {~ aj found during the "barrow site" operation, yet the discussion on page II-41 states 11~J contrary. These discussions must be updated and reverified by the archaeologist. Page III-27: O Is the topo shown on this exhibit pre-borrow site?. If so, please indicate area where borrow site activity has occurred. Page III-30: Will a median island break be needed for Campos Verde Lane? Also, a left turn pocket should be shown at General Kearney into the Regional Center SP for future improvements. Page III-32: Revise paragraph three to indicate that plans will be submitted to "the appropriate City Departments." Also, street improvements for phase one shall include full width for General Kearney all the way from project boundary to Margarita, and Margarita across entire frontage of phase two. Page III-39: Please note that the access from Margarita will be right-in/right-out only. Page III-43: Please note that the access from Margarita will be right-in/right-out only. Page III-45: An additional access should be provided from the extension of Starling St. and should be reflected on the exhibit on page III-46. Also revise pages III-6, III-10, III-13, and all others showing access points. Page III-47: O Please note that access will also be taken from Planning Area 7 and should be reflected on the exhibit on page III-48. O Campos Verde Specific Plan August 2fi, 1992 page five Page III-49: Please note that access shall also be taken from Sanderling Way and Planning Area 6. Revise the exhibit on page III-50 accordingly. Also make sure correct page numbers appear on the bottom of the page. Page IV-3: Revise this exhibit to match with Figure III-9. Page IV-8: Las paragraph on this page should be modified to state that landscaping within the transportation corridor shall be non-rquired landscaping. I'm not quite sure what is meant by "ma_Y~**+um transportation needs." Please elaborate. Page IV-15: Add bike lane on General Kearney per future General Plan. Page V-19: Who shall prepare the evacuation plan to be approved by FF.MA and when shall it be ~~ completed and approved? O Page V-30 thru 33: This discussion does not include the fact that the drainage area includes ablue-line stream as shown on the USGS maps. This means any work will require 1603 and 409 ~~ permits, as well as the relocation of existing wetland or habitat area. How is this to be addressed by the developer? Also, I doubt that the existing box under Margarita can remain. It will probably be removed and the crossing relocated to provide for the widening of Margarita Road. Please address these issues in all text and exhibits. Page V-89 thru 92: This section contains no discussion of the recent borrow site finds. This omission~p should be addressed and included in the text. Page V-93: ~~ Please note that Margarita is not being constructed as part of CFD 88-12. Page V-96: The connection of General Kearney to Ynez is now being shown on the preliminary circulation element for the city's new General Plan. Therefore, it must be addressed Sl ~j in this analysis. Also, there should be some discussion about the connection of Ilv Starling to Roripaugh Road and the project. This will impact traffic at Winchester Road and the adjacent subdivision. Page V-105: The Campos Verde Loop Road no longer exists. Delete from this discussion. ~~ Page V-116: O This section contaans a recommendation that the access from Margarita for Planning ~i Area 2 should be right-out only. Please elaborate and adjust other related pages if C~ necessary. Campos Verdes Specific Plan August 26, 1992 page six General: No where in the document is there a presentation of a Bike trail system to implement the congestion management recommendations of the traffic analysis. This omission needs to be addressed throughout the document and all pages and exhibits modified as necessary. The future General Plan of the city shows a bike trail in Margarita Road and General Kearney Road. No comments are available for the maps at this time. SPl.l 0 O O August 26, 1992 Bill Butler Mesa Homes 2755 Ynez Road, Suite 200 Temecula, California 92591 SUBJECT: Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) Staff's Comments Regarding Specific Plan No. 348, Campos Verde O Dear Mr. Butler: I have enclosed details of TCSD Staff's concerns and comments with respect to the aforementioned specific plan. I hope these comments are helpful to you in addressing Staff's concerns. Please call me should you have further questions. Gar L. King, Development Services Administrator glk cc: Shawn Nelson Debbie Ubnoske Beryl Yasinoski 9arry Burnell Bo Kemble O 45174 BLLSINFSS PnRK DRIVE ^ TEldECUU. CAUFO9NIA 92590 • PnoNe (714) 694.1989 • F.ix (714) 694 1999 Comments 1. Park Amenities (Pane IV 62 - 641 13.5 acre community park (Figures IV-251: The three (31 Ball Fields with Multi-Purpose Overlays identified on Page IV-62 - 64, Figure IV-25 should include lighting to accommodate night use. Lighting plan should specify the use of Musco Lighting. The Ball Fields should not be less than 275' in length, and should be a safe distance from proposed play groundltot lot areas. Fencing should be installed along sides of the Softball field boundaries. concrete pads should be installed at all specified viewing areas. The Rest Room Building identified on Page IV-62 - 64, Figure IV-25 should include a snack bar and a maintenance storage room. The Rest Room/Snack Bar/Maintenance Building should not be less than 1200 square feet of floor space. The play ground/tot lot areas identified on Page IV-62 - 64, Figure IV-25 should comply with all ADA requirements, and provide for additional shading. The park site should provide for signage, flag poles, water drinking fountains, refuse receptacles, picnic tables, barbecue pits, and pedestrian benches where appropriate and or otherwise specified by the TCSD, throughout the park site. 2. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan 13.5 acre community park (Planning Area "1" -Page IV-62 - 64, Figure IV-25) and additional 5 acre neighborhood park (Planning Area "6"): The 13.5 acre proposed community park within planning area "1" should be completed prior to the issuance of the first residential occupancy permit within Phase I, and offered for dedication to the City of Temecula. An additional 7 acre park within planning area "6" should be completed prior to the issuance of the first residential occupancy permit within Phase II, and offered for dedicated to the City of Temecula. O O O O CAMPOS VERDES Specific Plan No. 1 II-42: Parks and Recreation Maintenance of the park shall be the responsibility of TCSD, RCFC and the Water Conservation District, or Homeowner's Association. Since the possibility damage from inundation of water from storm flows, should TCSD accept the financial responsibility of maintaining a water retention basin that is being offered as a park site. III-5: band Use Development Standards p15 Common areas identified in the Specific Plan may be owned and maintained by permanent master maintenance organizations, to assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for all common arras, circulation systems, and landscaped areas. The organizations may be public or private. Common areas should be maintained by a HOA. III-15: Drainage Plan Development Standards It is anticipated that the major backbone drainage/flood control facilities will be maintained by the County Flood Control District, the Temecula Community Services District, and/or a Homeowner's Association. If the park is accepted by TCSD. III-29: Landscaping Plan (3rd Paragraph) Once within the site, entry monumentation will continue to be present at all key intersections. (In addition to major entry monumentation). The monumentation will be developed in a hierarchical format consisting of Major Entry, Secondary, Park/Commercial, Minor Entry, and Neighborhood Envy etc.... Entry monumentation, regardless if it is major or minor entry statements, will be maintained by the developer or HOA. O The Master Homeowner's Association and Master Commercial Association shall O be responsible for-on-site drainage. The TCSD, HOA, or RCFC will maintain park in Planning area 1. IV-51: V-5: V-136: Project monumentation will be maintained by the TCSD or the Homeowner's if not accepted for maintenance by the Temecula Community Services District. (TCSD should not maintain entry monumentation). Community Fencing Plan All walls which adjoin community streetscenes shall be located entirely within the streetscene parcel allowing for common maintenance by either the Temecula Community Services District or Master Association. (HOA should accept responsibility). General Plaa/Environmental Analysis Policy: All residential development shall provide landscape treatments adjacent to secondary or larger highways. The perpetual ownership and maintenance of this landscaping shall be ensured by a homeowners association, the TCSD or other means approved by the City of Temecula. Are secondary streets acceptable to TCSD? Mitigation Measures Maintenance of the park/dentention basin will be responsibility of the TCSD, ~~' RCFC, Water Conservation District or HOA. Does the City want to accept the responsibility and cost? O 0 ~~~ Q'®H8II81E~]P®R]IIDIE'R1Q:lE IID.BA'Il'~ oDgJS.~ '&g, fl~92 O O Q (~ ~" ~: ~ IJ1,l:tnine Consultants ~-`J O ~9 O Sa:;.\ ~;na • ~:;r Dim=~ Q ~ ,~ru• ~~'-1 A'.a f'i""-~;_ -1=iuo}•--~ F4\. 71b 66'-_':Ob lob No. 168.074 July 29,1992 Ben N. Minamide, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Murrieta 26442 Beckman Court Murrieta, CA 92562 Deaz Ben: T&B Planning Consultants represents Bedford Properties regarding Specific Plans for the Temecula Regional Cenur (SP 263), Campos Verdes (SP 1) and Winchester Hills (SP 255). We are in receipt through the City of Temecula of your letter of May 26, 1992. Your letter was written regazding the traffic and circulation aspects and impacts of those three projects. The letter was written in response to a distribution of a Preliminary Draft uzt of the Specific Plans by the City O of Temecula on Apri123, 1992. Your letter makes no reference to a previous letter wrinen by Chuck Mackey of BSI Consultants, dazed December 6, 1991. It is my understanding based on my discussions with Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner az the City of Temecula, thaz your letter of May 26, 1992 serves to replace the BSI letter dated December 6, 1991. It is my understanding thaz Miss Ubnoske has had conversations with representatives of the City of Murrieta who have indicazed this to her verbally. The purpose of my letter is merely to confirm this in writing so thaz there is no misunderstanding regarding the City of Murrieta's concerns with respett to these projecu. We and our traffic consultant, Bob Dars of Wilbur Stnith Associates, are working closely with the City of Temecula to address any and all appropriaze concerns regazding these projects. It is my expectation thaz Bob Davis and City staff will be working directly with Hank Mohle, your traffic engineer, and yourself regarding the City's concerns with respect to traffic. It is our objective to be fair and reasonable in assessing all impacts and deurmuring appropriaze mitigations. Although your letter of May 26, 1992, was received considerably after the public review periods had ended on both Temecula Regional Cenur and Wincheser Bills, if is our intention in cooperating with the City of Temecula to address your concerns in the Final EIR and Responses to Comments for those projects. Campos Verdes is currently out for public review, and it is our assumption thaz the comments in your May 26 letter still pertain and it is our intention to address those comments in the same manner. You should be aware thaz the technical appendix which was attached to your copy of the public review document distributed in eazly July does contain updated O information with respect to traffic analysis that was requested by the City of Temecula prior to distribution for public review. This additional information may satisfy some of the comments you Q Ben N. Minamide, PE ° July 30, 1992 V O~ Page 2 O made in your May 26 letter. We would encourage the City of Murrieta to provide us with any updazed analysis or comments you may have regarding the Campos Verdes project during the public review period. Otherwise, it will be our assumption that you intend the May 26, 19921etter to suffice as the City's public comment regarding Campos Verdes, and it will be addressed in the Final EIR accordingly. __ Certainly, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact tare or the City staff planners working on these projecu. Thanks very much for your time and consideration. Very tn:ly yours, T~iB PLANNING CONSULTANTS, gAIC. nk'~ Barry B ell Princip ]ts:cmcuoo2 xc: Debbie Ubnoske, City of Temecula Planning Dept. Doug Stewart, Engineering Dept. Bob Davis, Wilbur Smith Associazes O O O ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ nr, a~a O O V1/ILBUR SiVIITH O ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS .PLANNERS 3600 Lima Street, Suiie 226. Rive;vde. CA ?2501 . p)d) ?7d-0565. 'rAX (714) 27d-4?20 October 15, 1992 Mr. Robert Righetti Department of Public Works Ciry of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Traffic Issues Regarding Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills, and Campos Verdes. Dear Bob: Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has prepared the following Addendum material which addresses specific traffic impact issues discussed at our August 25th, 1992 meeting. The Addendum material responds to the following requesu made by you and your staff: 1) An azsessment of indimdual and cumulative project-related traffic increazes on study and roadways O and the evaluation of project-related traffic utilization of future planned roadway system capacity. 2) An assessment of roadway improvement phasing requirements for each of the proposed projects. 3) A summary of rewmmended mitigation measures for each of the three projects. As requested, this material will be bound into individual comprehensive Traffic Study documenu which will include all materials which have been generated for each project If you have any questiotu regarding this material please give me a call Sincerely yours, Wilbur Smith Associates ~( Q~.:Iavr~ Robert A. Davis Associate RAD:tj W'incAaty Hi14\BOBRIGHTJ•E112741d0 O'-=~~NY• N\' • ALLIANCE. CH • CAIRO. EG\'PT • CHARLESTON, SC • COLL'MBIq. SC • COLUMBUS. CH • DES MOINES, IA FALLS CHURCH. -DNG KONG • HOUSTON.'X • KNOXVILLE.?N • LEXINGSON. KV . LONDON. ENGLAND LOS ANGELES. CA MIAMI. FL N'-eENAH '.c\: Y.AVEN, Ci OAK!AND. CA ORLANDO. FL PITTS?URGH. PA POi<TSNOUTH. N'H PROVIDENCE, rtl RALEIGH. CriMCND. VA • RIVER9DE. CA • RCSELLE. IL • SAN FRANCISCO. Cq • SAN JOSE. CA . SINGAPO.E • TORONTO. CAtJADA . \YASHIIdGTON. EMPIOYEE•OWNED COMPANY Q Traffic Study Addendum Purpose and Scope Traffic impact study addendum material presented herein bas been prepared by Wilbur Smith Associate in response to several issue of concern raised by City of Temecula and City of Murrieta Public Works Department ataf£ Specifically, the addendum material include response to the following questions: 1) What is the incremental increase in traffic on planned area roadways due to the projects and what portion of the future roadway system capacity would be used by the projecu? 2) How will area roadway network improvement needs be affected by the projects development phazing plans? 3) What are the specific traffic impact mitigation meazure which are recommended for the individual projects? Htoadway System Traffic Hmpacts 'Ibe distnbution of project-related traffic on the planned future roadway network was derived using the same TRANPI.AN-based computer model used to develop the long-range (year 2000) traffic O forecasts reported in the project EIR Traffic Study. Origiru and destinations of project trips have been derived using the standard "gravity model" approach. Once the trip origins and destinations were defined, project related vehicle trips were assigned to the roadway networ& bazed on unrestrained minimum travel time paths between the project was and all other zone identified az either origins or dednations of project trips by the gravity model Results of the model generated project traffic assignment for the three projects are illustrated in Figure la through Id. Figures ]a through is depict "project only" traffic assignments for Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills, and Campos Verdes rapectiveiy. Figure ld displays the cumulative traffic volume for three Kemper/Bedford projects. As can be noted in these figure, project traffic on area roadways dissipate with distance from the project(s). This is due to project-related trips interacting with other land use (costing and planned in the area Many of the trips generated by the three projects have origins or destinations in the assumed to be developed areas surrounding the project It is important to recognize that every vehicle trip reported on the roadway network haz two ends - an origin and a destination. The impact of each vehicle trip on the network is actually shared by the land use on either end of the trip. Due to trip interaction between the three Kemper/Bedford projects (e.g. trips between the Temecula Regional Center and Winchester Hills or Campos Verde etc.) cumulative project traffic volume repotted on streets in the immediate project vicinity do not represent the sum total of the individual project volume. O The magnitude of project traffic impacts on area roadways and "fair share" responsibility has been O evaluated based on the projected utilization of the planned roadway's rapacity by project-related traffic. The future roadway system capacity utilization can be calculated for any given roadway segment by dividing the volume of project-related traffic on the segment by the roadway segmenu' planned capacity. The resulting numeric value represents the portion (percentage) of the ultimate roadway capacity which would be used by the project traffic The percent capacity utilization by the project tact also be correlated to the portion of the roadway segments' construction cost which could be attributed to the project For example, if project traffic utilized 50 percent of a roadway segments' capacity, the project could be responsible for funding 50 percent of the cost required to construct that roadway. If the roadway is a four-lane facility then the °fair ahaze" contribution would be equivalent to the construct of two traffic lanes or half-section improvement. Future roadway classification (including number of through lanes and related daily capacity values) used in the analysis are depicted in Figure 2 Percent utilization of future roadway system capacity is illustrated in Figures 3a through 3d. Fmdings of the project-related traffic assignment/distnbution and corresponding roadway system rapacity utilization are summarized below. Impacu on Clty oP Murrieta Streets -The cumulative impact of the three I{emper/Bedford projects is illustrated (in terms of traffic volume) in Figure ld and (in terms of future roadway capacity O utilization) in Figure 3d. The cumulative project traffic volumes displayed in Figure ld indicate the following: 1. The pattern of diminishing project traffic volumes along the Murrieta strcet system indicates that many of the vehicle trips associated with the three projects would have either trip destinations or trip origins within the City of Murrieta. The Mumeta Mall and Ranwn Business Center areas, for example, appear to be attracting a significant number of project trips (most hlcely from Winchester Hills and Campos Verdes residential areas). It is also likely that the Winchester Hills business park uses and Temecula Regional Center retail and employment related uses are attracting a significant number of trips from residential areas within Murrieta. 2 It is also evident from the cumulative project traffic volumes that a portion of the project related trips are traveling "through" Mumeta to access the I-15 and I-215 via interchanges located on Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Considering the accessibility of the Winchester Road interchange to both the Temecula Regional Center and Campos Verdes projects sites, most of this "through" traffic can be attnbuted to the Winchester Iii71s project (e.g. project traffic accessing I-215 and I-15 to and from the north). O 2 O 3. Principal north-south streets (Wazhingtoa Avenue, Jefferson Avenue, Madison Avenue, and Jackson Avenue) within the Ciry of Murrieta would carry cumulative project traffic volumes which range between a total of 17,000 vehicles per day (north of Date Street) to 12,400 vehicles per day (south of Hawthorn Street). 4. The Date Street/Raneon Center Boulevard corridor would carry cumulative project traffic ~~ volumes which range from 7,400 vehicles per day (on the overpass section) to 64,600 vehicles per day (immediately east of Diaz Road/Washington Avenue). 5. The Murrieta Hot Springs Road corridor would carry cumulative project traffic volumes which range from 9,200 vehicles per day (between I-215 and Jackson Avenue) to less than 2,000 vehicles per day (west of I-15 and east of Jackson Avenue). 6. Jackson Avenue would serve the highest cumulative project traffic volumes, with volumes ranging from 11,400 vehicles per day (immediately north of the Temecula/Murrieta City limit) to 9,900 vehicles per day (immediately south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road). Utilization of future roadway capacity (within Murrieta) by cumulative Kemper/Bedford project traffic is depicted in Figure 3d. Key Endings of this ana}ysis are az follows: 1. For principal north-south streets, the cumulative utilization of future roadway capacity by O project traffic would be equivalent to 44.8 percent of a four-lane Major or Arterial roadway immediately north of Date Street and 326 percent of a Major or Arterial roadway south of Hawthorne Street 2 Along the Date Street/Rancon Center Boulevard corridor, project traffic would uh7ize: a) 125 percent of the planned sa-lane overpass capacity; b) 9.5 percent of planned six-lane capacity between Madison Avenue and Jefferson Avenue; and c) an average of 132 percent of the planned four-lane Arterial capacity between Jefferson Avenue and Washington Avenue. 3. Utilization of planed Mumeta Hot Springs Road capacity by project traffic would total: a) a maximum of 15.6 percent of the six-lane section capacity between Jackson Avenue and I-215; b) 11.0 percent of the six-lane section capacity between I-215 and Hancock Avenue; c) approximately 5.9 percent of the six-lane section capacity between Hancock Avenue and I-15; and d) approximately 3 percent or less of the six-lane section capacity eazt of Jackson Avenue and west of I-15. 3 4. The ma:dmum utilization of planned roadway capacity within Murrieta would occur on the O segment of Jackson Avenue immediately north of the Temecula/Ivfurrieta Ciry Gmit (30 percent}. It is estimated that project related "through traffic" represents Avenue four-lane Arterial capacity. In summary, project related traffic impacts west of I-15 appear to be predominantly the result of trip interaction between the Ktmpei•/Bedford projects and Murrieta development. Capacity utilization impacu and "fair share" implementation responsibslides needed to recognize this future trip interaction. East of I-15, project trips would clearly contribute a significant component of "through traffic" impacts on Jackson Avenue az well az a smaller component of traffic impacts associated with trip interaction between project land use and future development within Murrieta. Impacts on County of Riverside Streets -The cumulative project traffic wlumes displayed in Figure 2d indicate the following: 1. The Margarita Road corridor would carry cumulative project traffic wlumes which range from 3,900 vehicles per day (north of Date Street) to 2,400 vehicles per day (south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road). 2 Date Street, between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, would serve the highest cumulative project traffic wlume within the County's jurisdiction, with 4,800 O vehicles per day. 3. The Murrieta Hot Springs Road corridor would carry cumulative project volumes ranging from 4,6Q0 vehicles per day (immediately east of Winchester Road) to 400 vehicles per day (immediately west of Date Street). 4. Though not a County highway, Winchester Road would carry cumulative project wlumes ranging from 6,400 vehicles per day immediately (north of Harriers Hot Springs Road) to less than 2,000 vehicles per day north of Beaton Road. Utilization of future roadway capacity (within County of Riverside jurisdiction) by cumulative project traffic is illustrated in Fgure 3d and summarized below. 1. Along the Margarita Road corridor, project traffic would utilize between 103 percent of the planned four-lane Arterial capacity between Date Street and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 2 Project traffic utilization of planned Date Street capacity would be 126 percent for the four- lane segment between Margarita Road and Mutrieta Hot Springs Road. O 3. Utilization of planned Murrieta Hot Springs Road capacity by project traffic would represent: O a) A ma~timum of 7.8 percent of the six-lane section capacity immediately east of Winchester Road, b) 6.1 percent of the sa-lane section capacity immediately east of Canyon Drive; c) 6.8 percent of less of the six-lane section capacity between Date Street and Winchester Road; d) 42 percent or less of the four-lane Arterial section capacity east of Leon Road; e) Approximately three percent of less of the six-lane section capacity between Margarita Road and Whitewood Road While the impact of cumulative project traffic on Riverside County roadways cannot be discounted as insignificant, the following factors need ro be considered: ° Most of the roadways identified in this section are either in the process of being improved, or are targeted for improvement via Winchester Assessment District 161. KemperBedford is a principal wntnbutor to this aatSess+±+ent District ° A major portion of the project flips (at least 70 percent) have one end either originating in or defined to existing or planned development in the TemeculaRviurrieta spheres' of influence. Without the Kemper/Bedford projects, there trips would continue to impact the area roadways. O 4. Project traffic utilization of planned Wincheter Road capacity would be between 10.8 percent (immediately north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road) and approximately 5 percent or less (north of Benton Road). Impacts oa City of Temecula Stints -The cumulative impact of the three KempedBedford projects on City of Temecula street is disctLssed below. Cumulative project traffic volumes, illustrated in Fgure ld, indicate the following: 1. As discussed earlier, the pattern of diminishing project traffic volume oa area streets reflects a high degree of trip interaction occurring between the projects and ousting/future land uses within the City of Temecula. Retail and employment land uses within Temecula from residential development throughout the City. Residential uses within Winchester Hills and Campos Verdes would in turn be attracted to retail and employment uses (odsting and planned) throughout the City. O Z. It is also clear that the three projects could also generate a component of traffic which is O either attracted into the area from the I-15 freeway corridor or is destined to the I-15 freeway corridor (e.g. commuters, shoppers, business-related etc.) These trips are most noticeable on Winchester Road and Ynez Road where these facilities provide access to and from the I-15 interchanges at Winchester Road and Rancho California Road. Segments of Margarita Road and Solana Way would also earn the freeway-0riented project traffic component 3. The Date Street corridor within the Winchester FiilLs project would carry cumulative project traffic volumes which range from appro~dmately 5,000 vehicles per day (immediately cast of Margarita Road) to 10,200 vehicles per day immediately east of Ynez Road 4. Ynez Road would earn cumulative project traffic volumes in the range of: a) 10,400 vehicles per day immediately north of Date Street; b) 6,600'!'0 13,800 vehicles per day between Date Street and Winchester Road; c) 15,800 vehicles per day immediately south of Winchester Road; d) 8,700 to 11,6fJ0 vehicles per day between Overland Drive and Rancho California Road; and e) 1,400 oc less vehicles per day south of Rancho California Road 5. The Margarita Road corridor would carry cumulative project traffic volumes is the range of: a) 3,300 to 7,700 vehicles per day between Date Street and Winchester Road; O b) 6,300 to 7,100 vehicles per day between Winchester Road and Overland Drive; c) 12,700 vehicles per day between Overland Drive and Solana Way; d) 5,600 to 8,700 vehicles per day between Solana Way and Moraga Road; e) 2,700 to 3,100 vehicles per day between Moraga Road and Ia Serena Way; and f) 1,500 vehicles or less south of Ta Serena Way. 6. The Winchester Road corridor would earn the highest cumulative project traffic volumes, with volumes ranging from 33,600 vehicles per day (between I-15 and Ynez Road) to less than 3,000 vehicles per day (between Diaz Road and Jefferson Avenue). 7. Overland Drive would carry project traffic wlumes which toW 1,400 vehicles per day (on the I-15 overpass) and between 8,900 and 7,500 vehicles per day east of Ynez Road. 8. Solana Way is projected to serve cumulative project traffic volumes approaching 3,400 vehicles per day. 9. Rancho California Road would carry a mardmum of 7,6Q0 cumulative project trips per day between I-15 and Ynez Road West of I-15 and east of Ynez Road, project traffic would total less than 2,000 vehicles per day. O O 10. The Front Street/Jefferson Avenue corridor is projected to carry less than 1,500 cumulative project trips per day except north of Winchester Road where daily project trips would track 3,400 vehicles per day. 11. General Kearney Road is projected to earn a maximum of 7,800 project trips per day within the limits of the Camgtu Verdes project last of the Campos Verdes development, cumulative project-related traffic would drop from 4,200 vehicles per day to approximately 800 vehicles per day. 12. The Nicolas Road corridor would earn cumulative project traffic volumes ranging between 5,700 and 3,200 vehicles per day. Utilization of future roadway capacity (within the City of Temecula) by cumulative Kemper/Bedford project traffic is depicted in Figure 3d. Key 5ndings of this analysis are summarized below: 1. Cumulative project uttization of future street capacity of principal roadways within or immediately adjacent to Winchester H11s project is as follows: a) between I0.8 and 173 percent of the six-lane Urban Arterial capacity planned for Date Street; b) between 17.4 and 27.4 percent of the four-lane Arterial capacity planned for Ynez Road; and O c) between 8.7 and 203 percent of the four-lane Arterial capacity planned for Margarita Road. 2. Utilisation of future capacity (by cumulative project traffic for principal roadways surrounding the Temecula Regional project is as follows: a) between 28S and 35.8 percent of the six-lane Urban Arterial capacity of Winchester Road; b) approodmateiy 26.8 percent of the six-lane Urban Arterial capacity of Ynez Road; c) between 16.6 and 18.7 percent of the four-lane Arterial capacity of Mazgarita Road; and d) between 19.7 and 23.4 percent of the four-lane Major street capacity of Overland Drive. 3. Roadway system capacity utilization (by cumulative project traffic for planned principal roadways within or abutting the Campos Verdes project is as follows: a) approximately 2Q3 percent of the six-lane Urban Arterial capacity of Winchester Road; b) Margarita Road (see item 2c); and c) approximately 26 percent of the four-lane Secondary capacity of General Kearney Road O 4. Off-site cumulative project utilisation of planned Winchester Road capacity is highest (43.1 O percent) between I-15-and Ynez Road. West of I-15 project-related capacity utilization would be 129 percent (from I-15 to Jefferson Avenue) and between 7.4 and 5.8 percent from Jefferson Avenue to Diaz Road. Fast of Roripaugh Road, project traffic would utilize 18S to 125 percent of the planned six-lane Urban Arterial capacity. 5. Along the off-site segments of Ynez Road, project traffic would utilize: a) 363 percent of the four-lane Major street capacity immediately north of Winchester Road; b) a maximum of 19.7 percent of the six-lane section capacity between Overland Drive and Rancho California Road; and c) 3.7 percent or less of the four-lane section capacity south of Rancho California Road 6. Off-site cumulative project traffic utilisation of the planned Margarita Road corridor capacity would be: a) a maximum of 127 percent of the four-lane Arterial capacity between Overland Drive and Solana Way; b) between 8.7 percent and 5.6 percent of the four-lane Arterial capacity from Solana Way to Moraga Road; c) 7.7 percent of the four-lane Arterial capacity immediately north of Winchester Road; and d) 3.1 percent or less of the four-lane Arterial rapacity east of Moraga Road and south of O Ia Serena Way. 7. Project traffic utilization of Rancho California Road capadty would be highest (129 percent) between I-15 and Ynez Road. All other segment capacities would be impacted by SS percent or less project traffic utilisation. 8. Utilization of planned Nicolaz Road capacity by project traffic would represent 5.7 percent of the four-lane section capacity west of General Kearney Road and 53 percent or less of it's capacity east of General Kearney Road. 9. Project utilisation of other principal o&site roadway capacities would be az follows: a) General Kearney Road -between 14.0 percent and 27 percent of the planned four-lane Secondary capacity; b) Solana Way - 103 percent of the planned four-lane Major street capacity; c) Moraga Road - 93 percent of the planned four-lane Secondary street capacity; d) Jefferson Avenue -between 8.9 percent (immediately north of Winchester Road) and 32 percent (south of Winchester Road) of the four-lane capacity, e) Overland Drive - 4.7 percent of the planned four-lane overpass; and f) on all other accecc roadways - 5.0 percent or less. O 8 O Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan Findings of the traffic analysis indicate that, at projected buDd-0ut of the three KemperBedford projects substantial roadway improvements wt71 be needed in the study area. It ;s important to recognize that principal roadway improvements which comprise the planned City of Temecula Circulation Element wt71 be needed in the future whether or not the proposed projects are implemented. Although these new and improved roadway facilities would be serving the immediate access needs of these proposed projects and other numerous planned development projects within the study area, most of the improvements could also play an important role in serving the general circulation needs of the Temecula commercial core area which straddles the I-15 corridor. Some of the improvements (e.g. Winchester Road - S.R 79 widening and I-15/Wmchester Road interchange reconstruction) would even serve future re¢ional circulation needs. The intent of the "conceptual circulation system phasing plan" developed in this study is to present a logical implementation sequence for the construction of needed area-wide roadway improvements which also considers the proposed phasing plan for the proposed Kemper/Bedford projects. It should be noted that project butld-out (assumed Year 2Q00) roadway needs have essentially been based on full development (buildout) of all land uses within the immediate study area. The market driven implementation rate of major development projects in the area will have very O strong influence on the timing of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development projects are implemented, they wt11 require access. Many of the phased roadway improvements suggested in this plan are intended to provide for those local access needs and at the same time work towards completing the ultimate area-wide circulation network. In some cases, the phased improvement is overdaigned for the anticipated local development access needs but considers ultimate needs and the desire to m+nimi~r future construction impacts related to phazed widenings (e.g., initially building two lanes sad the widening to fow lanes at the later date). The assessment of financing/implementation responsibilities for area-wide roadway improvements should coatider that the key elements of the planned circulation system (including the Overland overpass, Data Strcet overpass, and Winchester Interchange improvements) will be needed even if proposed KemperBedford development projects are not implemented. Since it is more difficult to predict the rate and pattern of long-term (5 to 10 years) development than short-term (1 to 5 years) development, it should be recognized that the actual roadway needs for implementation periods beyond 5 year; could vary significantly from the conceptual plan presented in this study. It is also important to consider that many of the roadway improvements identified would imrolve a multi jurisdicdon/agency review and coordination process which could impact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein. O 9 Anticipated Project Development Phasing -Project phazing assumed in this analysis is based on the O Project Phazing Plan presented in the individual Specific Plan documenu Sue to changing market strategies, these phasing plans have been developed az a "guideline" only for City review and monitoring. Future market demands may dictate varying approaches to phazing which could alter the currently expected rate and/or sequence of project implementation. Project Phazing Plan assumptions are ~7lustrated in Figures 4, 11, and 18 for the Temecula Regional center, Winchester Hilts, and Camps Verdes projects respectively. Amore detailed breakdown of project phazing assumptions including anticipated development status and corresponding trip generation (both incremental and cumulative) by sQ analysis time periods is presented for each I{emper/Bedford project in Tables 1 through 3. Anticipated Background Development - In order to analyze roadway system implementation Phazing needs, it was necessary to make general assumptions regarding the rate and location of other area development. For the purposes of this assessment it waz assumed that other area development would build-out at a constant rate over the next eight years and in a manner which would evenly distnbute the new development throughout the study area. Conceptual Circulation System Phasing -Results of the circulation system phasing assessment are presented in Figures 5 through 10 (Temecula Regional Center), Figures 12 through 17 (Winchester Hills), and Figures 19 through 24 (Campos Verdes). It should be noted that the Conceptual Circulation System Phazing Plan is identical for each of the three projects. The individual Phazing O plans differ only in terms of the specific project development status and the corresponding cumulative project trip generation given for each implementation period. Our approach in preparing the Conceptual Circulation System Phazing Plan included planning level assessments which focused on the immediate access nerds of each project az well az capacity of key congestion "bottle necks" such az the Winchester Road/Yaez Road intersection and Winchester Road/I-15 interchange. The proposed roadway improvement implementation sequence haz been formulated to provide incremental stages of relief to these congestion prone areaz. Additionally, Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities District 88-12 Gave bees considered in the development of the Phazing Plan. It is important to recognize that the Conceptual Circulation systems Phazing Plan presented herein does not imply that the individual Kemper/Bedford projects would be responsble for implementing the roadway improvement ncedc identified in the Conceptual Phazing Plan. At the same time, it also needs to be recognized that the rate at which projects in the study area are permitted to develop should be correlated to the circulation systems' abiL'ty to adequately accommodate the traffic which these projects will generate O 10 0 O 0 O d }° ~ F o ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ° F' ~' ~ r v° ~ ono C W ~ V+ ° ~ m E o. ~' U m c N = Qr 6 F ~. ~ 6 ~ 6 ~ ~. 6 h °~ c F F ,= F F.. F ~ ` F F F F V] d ~ ~. V ~ 7 O d ~ L ~ ~ = 7 0 ~ t ° Z ~ ~ ~ O V ~ 7 C e G ~ ~ . F V Z ~ ~ v x d O S st ~ ~ C ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ U 4. ~ 8 n ~ 8 g h 4 o ~ o b go o. ~ g n o. m r h a e- ao b N r ~ v a ~° 7 Y a u d e ^ O a~t ~~6 V ~ V N N N a N a r N i ' N a r a ~ d N a r a ' ° '-° -,°p ~ °' o . e '. i Q , o j o '. o .' o '. o , m~ F h a e u ° `o `o `o ° > o ° o o 0 0 o 0 e m b ~ ~ O o ~ > ~ > ~ a ~ 9 > ~ ; O a '6 E O -u ? ? 9 - 9 - ? ° 9 - C - o. E" p m m m m m ~ m m m m m £ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ u `u `u p°° a °' ~ u d y C ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ O - e~ h 0 O O h ~ ~ 6 u _ u _ u _ u -_ u _ u .. u _ u ~_ u _ V _~ V Qr C .~ G L d C L . S OL . L L L L GL . V ~ Y u { ~ Y { ,~ Y y V ~ { ~ Y y V y V y V a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` 0 ` 0 0 0, a d d o. n. d a . a o. d d A $ ~di u pV, ~ y O e v ° x u E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V c E R "' ~ .. ~ . N . m e e a a 4 O o a ~. . ~. ~° o 8` o b\ ° g p ~ `0 0 m E o. ~' U m a m m ~ R.a a ~ ~' c a E c Yi o ~; F o. ~. a °~ c F F F gf .. F E` 0. r = 0 = 6 :. u v O Z L O ~ ~ :° y c S E" ~ ~ , a7 u 0 > a as ~ > a > O a., ~ D. > x E , . ~' ~ G ~ G g o c. C ~ ~O b 4 m ~O b ~ ~ vi N prpf ~D ~o{ OD L N W 00 ~D OD N ~O N '~ r y N L' ~ O '-3 .. N L = 7 Y v !; w ~ ~ 'E 'y~ V] C C v O ... O v O v O ., O p ~ Fa = L ° c ' O O O O O e 9 C 3 o ~ v o g v g e - o ~ ~ ~ m m m 61 m m is d ~ ~ u p C ~ ~ c d ~ d ~ °' `D `o °' a ~ °' N ~ d °' a ~ °' ~ ~ a y $ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ an ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ r' :: r ~ _ :.; r ~ ^ C .~.. ~ u b h O ~ b h V ~ b u ~ ~ ~ V R ~O ~ ~ r O V R .Q. t L L y1 t L Uy L ,,,~ L L aS e n. a °' a °' .r ° ' °' °' ~ °' °' °' °' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E , o a o a o a o a o a o a o o a , c o, o: o. a a a; a e: a o. a o. o. e, e. d Y ~ u ° + n o . e 0, r A o v u E ~ g ~ ~ tF ~ c E .. ~ ~ ~ EF 0 O m C e e A o. II O a O O 0 ~. ° is 0 F e 8~ ~ 8 -' F' `~ `O ~ .. C ~ ~ V ° Y E s ~' U . m e n m ~ a 8 E- ~ ~. °' 1S' !~ ~ '~ a . F ~ ;, F` F E F F` a, S ° u E' u ~ .. d .. y ~' ~ V 7 ~ ~ O O ° W G L > O x Z > r F i j ~" L > ._. ® e E d ~ ~ sc ss 3> ~ ~ o T N T N ~ C G °' G Z C a ~ G n. g ~ c d o a ~ ° ~~ „ , ° ° ~ ~ ~ + ~ a o g 9 m ~o ,y !'f R d d > = a a s ~ ~ $ e ` `o ° ` o `o ° , H V o o E 1p d 0 ~ p ~ Q ~ Q '~ ~ N T. y ° D O 9 9 9 7 ~ r+ N m m m m m m ~ d Q 7 C C v~ p ~ .. cd. ~- d u °' ~ i ~- a ~- a v °~ % d i ~ ~ ~ W ^ ~ ~ r ~ V1 G L L ~ L ~ t 1. ~ i w a L L gyp' G. gyp' C. L ~p L py' E $ :i -' ~ ~ $ -' ~ ~' a o o d o d o o ` d o a ° a e. o: ~ a a n . a a a. d d A $ ~ u u i p , ~, e ~ y m O a v u c E ~ ~ ~ ~o ' ~ Q i L B ~ ~ S: OD e C C W G. a d As part of our roadway phasing assessment, we Gave identified a number of improvements which are O currently anticipated to be critical (either directly or indirectly) to the development of the individual Kemper/Bedford projects. This does not suggest that the identified improvement, but rather the timely implementation of the identified improvement would influence the status of traffic congestion in the azea. The resulting wngestion levels could influence the City's ability to issue building permits. Temecula Regional Center (Refer to Figure 5 through 10) ° Projected 1493-1994 Implementation Period: - Two-lane interim improvement of Mazgarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. - Ynez Road widening from project boundary south to Rancho California Road - Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. - New signal installations on Winchester Road to Margazita Road, Niwlas Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Projected 1994 to 1495 Implementation Period: - Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road - Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road - New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and Mazgarita Road. O - New signal installations on Winchester Road at Temecula Regional Center accea roads. - On-site circulation system improvements/access connections. Projected 1995 to 1996 Implementation Period - Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements. - Two-lane interim Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue extension to Murrieta Hot Springs Road ° Projected 1446 to 1498 Implementation Period: - Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. - New signal installations oa Ynez Road at County Center Drive and Sate Street - new signal instailation oa Margarita Road at Date Street - Two-lane extension of General Kearney Road eazterly to Nicolas Road. ° Projected 1498 to 1499 Implementation Period: - Date Street overpass improvements. O 11 Projected 1999 to 2000 Implementation Period: O - Winchester Road widening between I-15 and Ynez Road. - Jackson Avenue widening from the Temecula City limit to Murtieta Hot Springs Road Winchester Hills (Refer to Figures 12 through 1~ Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period: - Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. - Four-lane extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment - On-site loop street and connector street improvements as depicted in Figure 12 - Widening of Jefferson Avenue from Date Street to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. - Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road - New signal installation on Winchester Road at Margarita and Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersections. Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period: - Two-lane interim improvement of Date Street west of Ynez Road. O - Four-lane impmvemeat of Date Street from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hat Springs Road. - Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. - Widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: - Sct-lane and two-lane interim improvement on Date Street as depicted n Figure 14. - Four-lane on-site and two-lane interim off-site improvement of Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road - On-site loop street and connector street improvemenu as t7lustrated in Figure 14. - Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margarita Road, Ynez Road/Project Connector Street, and Date Street/Ynez Road intersections. - New signal installations at Date Street/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road/Project Connector Street intersections. - Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements. O 12 Projected 1996-1498 Implementation Period: O - Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. - Date Street widening from Lincoln to Mazgarita Road. - New signal installations on Date Street at Ynez Road, Lincoln and Margarita Road intersections. - New signs! installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and the Project Connector Street intersections. Projected 1498-1449 Implementation Period: - Construction of the Date Street overpass and installation of new signals on Date Street at Madison Avenue and the Business Park access street - New signal installation at Jackson Avenue/North Business Pazk attest street Projected 1449-2000 Implementation Period: - Widening of Jackson Avenue between the City limit and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Campos Verdes Projected 1493-1494 Implementation Period: - Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester O Road. - Four-lane improvement of General kearney Road from the new Margarita Road alignment to the easterly project limits. - Solana Way widening between Ynez Road and Margarita Road - Ynez Road widening from the Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road. - Winchester Road widening from Mazgarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. - New signal installations on Margarita Road at Winchester Road and Solana Way. Projected 14941495 Implementation Period: - Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road - Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. - New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and Margarita. - New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and General Kearney Road Projected 1495-1446 Implementation Period: - Winchester Road interchanges ramp improvemenu. - New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and Campos Verdes access road. O 13 Projected 1996.1998 Implementation Period: O - Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. Two-lane General Kearory Road extension from eazterfy project limits to Nicolas Road ° Projected 1998.2000 Implementation Period: - (No system improvements assessed to be critical to the development of Campos Verdes. Recommended IVTitigatioa 1~%eastares The formulation of recommended mitigation measures for the three ILemper/Bedford urban core projecu haz been bazed on a number factor; including: 1. Findings of the original traffic impact studies prepared for the projects; 2 Findings of the project-related traffic utr7iTadon analysis of planned area roadway system capacity; and 3. Findings of the conceptual circulation system phasing analysis. O Assessments of area roadway capaaty utilisation reveal that cumulative project traffic impacts are wide-spread but vary significantly in tenas of magnitude Furthermore this analysis also reveals that project trips are comprised of a combination of new trips and diverted trips. New trips consist of those project trips which would clearly be added to roadway network such az those vehicle trips which would have one end of the trip within the project and one end outside of the study area. Diverted trips describe those project-related trips on azea roadways which rault from the interaction of land uses within the projects and other local area land uses (both existing and planned). With diverted trips, the associated traffic impacts can not be defined az the responsibility of the projects under study since the opposite end of these trips, in effect, is being generated by other area land uses, At best the impacts of these trips mould be assessed az the responsibility of the land use which is closest to the location where the impact occurs. It would not be equitable for the Kemper/Bedford projects to assume full raponsibr7ity for the impact of these diverted trips since elimination of the Kemper/Bedford projects would not eliminate the land uses which are generating the opposite ends of these trips. Without the Kemper/Bedford projects these trips would essentially be redistnbuted to interact with other local or regional development. O 14 In terms of the dispersion of project related traffic impacts (e.g. roadway capacity utilization), it is O not practical to assess widespread roadway implementation cost responsibilities when "fair share" assessments represent very small portions of the cost to implement individual roadway improvements. The approach taken in this assessment is one which recognizes the cumulative impacts over a widespread area and concentrates an equivalent mitigation effort in a strategic and more effective manner. Rewmmeaded mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kemper/Bedford projects aze summarized below: .1. 50 percent implementation responsbility for Jackson Avenue from the Temecula/Murrieta City limits to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. " Winchester Hills is assessed 90 percent of the mitigation. Temecula Regional Center is assess 10 percent of the Mitigation. 2. 16.6 percent or 1/6th implementation responsbility for the Date Street overpass. Winchester Hr71s is assessed 100 percent of the mitigation. 3. 28 percent implementation responsibility far the Winchester Road interchange overpass widening and currently planned ramp widenings. " Winchester Hills is assessed 17 percent of the mitigation. O Temecula Regional Center is assessed 80 percent of the mitigation. Campos Verdes is assessed 3 percent of the mitigation. 4. 5 percent implementation responsibility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road). " Temecula Regional Center is assessed 60 percent of the mitigation. Campos Verdes is assessed 40 percent of the mitigation. 5. 15 percent implementation responsibiity for the Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive to Rancho California Road Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. Winchester HAIs is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. 6. 16.6 percent implementation responsibility for the Winchester Road widening from Mazgarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 40 percent of the mitigation. Winchester Hills is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. O 15 O 7. 25 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from Solana Way to Winchester Road. ° Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 65 percent of the mitigation. ° Winchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation ° Campos Verdes is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation. 8. 15 percent implementation responsbiity for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road ° Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 35 percent of the mitigation ° Winchester Hr71s is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation. ° Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. 9. 25 percent of the implementation responsbr7ity for the four-lane Ynez Road improvement from its present terminus at Equity Drive to the Temecula/Murrieta City limits. ° Temecula Regional Center is assessed with ?A percent of the mitigation. ° Winchester Hills is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation 10. 16.6 percent of the implementation responsibiity for the sie-lane Date Street improvement from the I-15 overpass structure to Margarita Road ° Winchester Hrllc is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation O 11. 13 percent of the implementation resgonsbility for the four-lane Date Strcet improvement from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road ° Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation. 12. 25 percent of the implementation responstbility for the four-lane improvement of Overland Drive from Ynez Road to Margarita Road. ° Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation. ° Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation ° Campos Verdes is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation 13. 30 percent of the implementation responsibility for four-lane improvements responsibility Far four-lane improvement of General Kearnry Road from Mazgarita Road to the easterly Campos Verdes project boundary. ° Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation ° Campos Verdes is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. 14. 15 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane improvement of General Kearney Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road ° Temecula Regional Center is assessed with &5 percent of the mitigation. ° Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. O ]6 15. 10 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Solana Way from Ynez O Road to Margarita Road. Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation. Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation. Campos Venda is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation. 16. 5 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Harriers Hot Springs Road from Date Street to Canyon Drive. Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation. Winchater Hills is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. 17. Signal system implementation raponsibtlities would be as indication below. a) 100 percent responsibility for on-site signals within the Winchater Ht7La project including: Date Street signals at Business Park Access Street, Ynez Road, Lincoln, and Margarita Road; Ynez Road signals at Business Park Access Street, and Loop Road Connector Street (near Equity Drive); and Margarita Road signal at southerly Loop Road Connector Street b) 100 percent responsibility for Temecula Regional Center project perimeter access signals including: O Winchater Road signal at westerly Regional Center Access Road; Overland Drive signal at Regional Center Access Road; and Eidsting regional modification costs at Palm PIa7a Access and Costco Center Access. c) 100 percent raponsibiliry for Campos Verdes Access signals on Margarita Road at General Kearnry Road and Campos Venda Access Street d) SO percent raponsibt7ity for signals located at the following intersections: Margarita Road/Wmchester Road; Margarita Road/Overland Drive; and Ynez Road/Overland Drive. e) 25 percent raponsibility for the signal installations at: Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and Margarita Road/Solana Way. O 17 O It is important to note that the implementation responsbilities detailed herein do not take into account Kemper/Bedfords contnbutions toward Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities District 85-12 which together address many of the improvements included in the refined recommended mitigation measures. Kemper/Bedford should be given aedit where appropriate for assessments involving the project properties and roadway improvements included in the 161 and58-12 districts. Credits should also be considered for right-of-way dedications involving the recommended street improvements. In addition to the above listed mitigation measures, the individual KemperBedford projects would be responsible for implementing all on-site project strcet improvements which Gave not already been discussed Individual project mitigation would also include preparation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs which meet the requirements of the City's "soon to be adopted" TDM ordinance. Please not that the Winchester HIIIs project, as part of its' mitigation program, has reserved an easement along the I-15 property frontage for a potential future collector-distnbutor roadlmterchange system involving Date Street O O 18 O A r 7 LL A W A ~ m ~1 c b d ~ U ~ c ®-° rn ~d ~. ~ W ~ ~ e~ ~~ E ~F U .~ O d A W O z o~ wx Ox W J p~ Y a T O LL O O ~s N A W W 6 g ~_ L~ r U .~ A b A .~ N O N m t V C o:- ~~~ wx C~ x W J U r O O O h: m 7 01 LL 3 a G ~' Z W M W K J A 6 b N m 9 b O a E A U r~ •~ b A .~ 0 O O ~- m rn LL m v O a m v m 0 U1 a AE ~ W V ~ ~ t~ Q A m V^ ~ U e. _ ~ W C g O ® y V W ~ V ~ d ~ E ~ F V ~ ~ __ '® s e. ~ m .+ A a~i m _ ~ c ® ~ c a E 0 V 0 O a~gj c a°o ~ i o W % Ox I'~ :~. d 5 rn LL v ~o a m U E m .. N T N N ~ A O ~ ~ A ~ o V •a. O O O i o° < < ., t~S=mmg =a 9999--~m9x Om m~ L{ jC~ 0 1 1 1 1 Lw w J ~'V_ T>T„T1 Tl~lwgw 33 ` -°~~-g 9c 1cJ w °mo ~E~YY Sc: .~Y9J Z Y. IL LLLL »jIN CN W ~ O (7 ~00~~Q ~ LL LL LL LL J -J t I N V N~/~ c YI Y a N U f l0 H 9 A N r l0 Q r U d ~ O N a N '~ ~ ~ c 0 :. m v m U 0 LL ~~ O O O ~: w c~ m ~: - rn A V W C~ 9a A @1 b W b m c w U C O O~ m Q W 7 V m E a ~~" s ~ 4 y Q ° ~ a ~~ a • ~ O - d rn LL O A ~+ .~ A W ~1 .}. C~ U m S m r t U C 5 `~ € ~ 0 bx ~x i O O O F, U d r 7 Os LL A U W t0 A b r,~ g ed 61 e.. ~1 m 0 a W U 8 a° b a Q n O xK W % J O O 'J d 5 m r V a m v A ~ y U m ~ o g n U~ A ~ ~~ ~ d f0 c ® o ~ U m ~ c 6 ~ ~ Ci ~ d 11,~, ~ Cs W ~ ~ ® ~ ® a" C.d Ifl ~ _ e ~ e d dd r m ~ t ~ C b 9 @1 0 C a E 0 U 0 LL ~ a a ~ ~~~ o e° ~ W %R W % o ~o o~ o o~ o N I I a a a v~ en N o~ ..~ _. o'$ m 0 e ~' W ' L~': ~ "i~, ~ O O N °m rn d > ~ g f~ !; (~ g f~ r~ g b g g _® fem. 5 A 7 V W b !~ tW C O W !~ b ~~p~ ~tid0 O O O 'J./ 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 e 1 1 B ~p Fmj¢QQ LL $ g e aA c 0$ m oc c _m o _ o~ E m $ m0 m a G m N mOO ~ f ) 0 ~ O m 6 ° C c ~ Y 0 Z o~ c O O o o O ~ IY ~ i m $ ~: ? p °°69~ ~ o~ rPOmm Eo °' Og pom ~3 ! 'gmE °O cE ° m ~ m mE EE c S o C $ c w t m S O ¢Os o ~ b cU v a$B° 00 ~ ° N W wWZ mi m ~ m OO ODm f E a< a °Y~ o o e B w c c $ w ° i o c= g 0 ° g p m y ~ ~ e WUZ m ;i ;i ere n e Om° a ¢ e 3 0° mm OmE o ° 6D u mo° <O=< ~ e Z ole«O ~* G i b 'd' ~ B a 0 0 a` o' a ~m iR m m b n a ... g Y ~~ m m° u°5 a``~ muuE » < ~ t.. T m ~ $ $ LL w w t Q m m NeN< m I1~ ~ - « m O>~ ._mo ~~m °uo uU~~ w em2}~ u iJmEv ub r~ 6 cp ~ w 20~1VZ2 w ~ m ~ m ` .[. 7 a LL B ~1 0 ~1 ~ ~ A A ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ V a q® ~ ~ Ca L ~"' ~ Q {ll ~ @1 ® o i e c M ~ m ~ eU ~ ~ m P r1 ® o ~a°rn ~ ~ d ~ ®¢ ~ o ~ ~ ~oo~~ 00 O O O 00 0 e ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ t .~~~~ I ~ r Y a$ g ~g g6 E ° °D- pC YO o o p1 y >Y~ m Y V$° p O C O ~ ~ ° Z o g~ o of p m m o b w a s e o ~ m? E° 6p~~.~ O `b bDm Y o ~3 ccDo Y~:E o°~ bE _ an s ~`b ou y Y E Y F 3 g o 3 ;~ a°` a °Oa 'w-g~ Y ~o SE ~ u ~ mob g h $ E °' Fo W 3b oow o °-°u'c V a9 $ 0 ~$~ Oa =b$ r y n 2 a a. o c~=Db L gE~ a go p3 : $°i J u~sz O y n F OHO : Dm° b9 bb Dm Dm€ ~ i °`D VYO aD=a o N a a` i 0 m _' a s '~ i e F~ y z o, . g ~a f Y b K n F Y ~~°° m m:5y 'e ° e N yF~FUa ~3E &gig ~¢_ ° y mfe< =aeEm ~~~~ u o osm uU~Z e mb3~~ E ~ W y a - ° w ~~b~<¢° P e ` a LL A q~ 6 b 9 A ~ d ~¢//~qqN H e.. o- L ~ r ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ @1 eq ~' A C ~ @~, U ~ N ~ e~ O P A a'° OI ~ N ~ ~ Q e~ @1 o ~ 5 ~ ~ v oo~ ~oo~ ~ ~0 O O O S8 mm~B p e0 e ~ _O VO m Y° E$p ° 0 0 e _ e O O y C Y O m G p ~ C 6 e ~~ ° ~ w E° e 2 ~~ a ' e Z ° p°°g~s` e: Rio; OC O- O OW OYC IO °- ~-;~ °~ a°e ~ "s~'aS:sY` 9 ~~aE S 00 F- N N wW2 a ~ °m~ ^pm ° e< 0 p p$ o = CB me o 0 o C$ p O • E E o ~- 8C ° m op ° ~~{{6 ~j 'W-Z O; ~ e}O 1 0 006 N' a 6 v9 OOE C ° 0000- p ~ C V V Op 6D=< p I M1 ^ ^ O' ~IJ * a ~ ~ 1 = V V W B u~~~ :°~~w m~~~~ f ~ p £ ° ~ i~StS<¢° n e 1 w ` = LL Y/ ~ w~ q, G~J 6 ~ A ~ 'O ~ ~ N ~ ~ V ~ ... o- p®~ W ~~S a ~/ •~ ~ ~ W ~ @1 Q ~ ~ m ~ ~ U ~ ~ m ~ A o ~a° m ~ m d ~ ®¢ V ~ o A 6 ~+" a.I ~~ ^~ B p~ 5 mg 8 o a YpY $ j88 4 Y EO ~ O O O °~L p q yp E V O Y po6 ~ g ° m n E o ~P p ~ mE n pV Yp 4~3 ¢ ~G pu FOp O ° ° of m ~ ~E n E rE g3u c - w~ °Ob _C p m w pDn S VY 9 ~ E ° J WZ s W N CV SS YIY S~OmU y CVO y 3~ <6 n Pa - S n p C e e a>m e'a oe ~a pp p WnZgl'1 .r Oma s" ~GmOmEE um LL~< 0=< ~ p ~ i iU 'K P W I a s '~',.~'.~~".,~. Z 1 ~ V a at SAN )~ . r .~i ° e » 4~ ° e a` <` >. ~ a m ~ mY ~ o °~ K O g w ' )t m' 3 7~ m g77 M J pP AL p ~~ w t P e A ~ p ~ O .~ ~ ::<:.,, :.,~i,y..o.. << g t s:;::.:. _ vq ~ '1 ~' vi ~:. :iii ~ " m J p f:'ii •ua it ~.. _. n _~ ~ <:: ;~:,;•;;<>!~%:~:i:::H.'. ~ > ~ ~ - wYY Y..,. ~ C S~: ~z n AWY~ fw~W e~~y p6 Ya Ott- h_u U'6 < E m E'er $8°^ ° POMP ~ Q p y ~"i u m w N < • • n m o m _r_ 3 0 5 J6; ~moj » ~ m ho ~ uUF ~ p O 0 7 ° Ill iAd=~ ^ p ° ~ <¢ i00 n P p ` I 7 t« ~ 8 6b to ^ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ A 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U Y- ® ~ W ~~y U /F//~~I q~q~ W VI V ~ O C ~~U ~ ~ ~a Q ~+ c ~~rn ~ ~¢ U ~ c 9 ~ ~ ~ v Daoo ~dOv~ 5 3 ~^~4~0 O ' ~~£~em °ooC O ~Qn ~ _ - e ° c p p aaoo ~ c ~=~ O~ ~ ~ s 0 p r 0 eDmMy weODOZ 1 9e G ~'e55m ~.23s 4Q~ m ~~ <l v~ J ~ ~~va. Y 0 ym _3 °pS F~ W o rrrn wrrr LL ~ o:. C a rt A a ~ ~ i F ( a ney ~ A ~ ~ ~ q` fD wr1 ai ~ t0 ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ 0 0 v ` i~ ' < 2 yy E c ~ r i'rk~Y`:':~..o: ~ o ~ I°? ~ ~ s i r ~ ~ ~ ry G y ~ .~w ~ ~ c n ~ !1 J O N C ~wqq d / ~\ m O a (~ ~ n ~' o ~ ~ _ ~ A ~' ~ N m e r 4 ^ ~ 8 i .n m . um Do'e tai ga S~mO mo vmo ~^ Za o ~ ~"" ~ v~ o o v_g =~ y~ f f ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ S~n~O ~$ n. dew Ow om m m :~ wo n ° Qp9 ° (~ ° o. 6y o e o S o go o - ~ m u /~O? ~ pp _ n a i C e Y N QJ O ~ Y 30 P e n O 'w 4/ ~ n`e3~ o9n~_ 3e 3v°,n a3y ~ eo0 w0 a3 = ~ ~ e ~ $ O ww n 3 ewo~ i i m -`s_ mms 20°-rte j2 w ^ 0 s ei=e e = iSSo3 o n e n _ 900 s _.n bey y C s o 3 m ~ o m o ~ a Oe s o $$v S ee n ~ ~ o ~l a~ e a 8 O O O 4 Y ~ ~~~ R 444Y "~+r... ai 1= 4 V O eiCop [ ° J O C m O P O~ m VO, Ep p p'°O- °^ d+Yp Y 9 L 4 > ° Y m o Ypd L O C D ¢ V C b~ Y M p z4 g pet O- uu W y O E 4 44 Y~ nn nTj~ s m V m _m m 4 fO n' Y m E ~° O ffLLa]]ll ° . on n f D .^~ E L Y V e e E E C 3 ° C 6J ~ D~ m~ Y~ w ~ a Y ~_ V. n ~pE p vb OC ~ L 6 p g D E 4m o w nu n U <9 ~ 'o B ~ ~, tlcB o HN m Z S o> e 4~ _eO soE E o ~< D o ' n S°-~ a Y a E e 3 3 gas gx °c55 a p ~ u° ' _ 'J Gu~nz r m>tl VJ 6Y inn: pmn om 00E5 'J a`o n V 4 p tC'-< Wl ~~ ono~k ~ a ~ 0 D a` N tl~ Y Wpb a ;Y b N Z ,. F _° !. ~ _ o _~... mor,,,,,~~ , g ~4 n u°5 g 6 Y n •r~r c.' wuoo ~c t!~ l~ 5 m~ m E a O $ a`^ nOr t Q Y V ~-°~r~ Y ~ _ y ~ V y l < Yl 01 ~ L 4 -« m 305 =F 4?D °~ 9 u D i D- a uU~Zw u 5 E ~ W V)" "~° r a ~ob~<a 0 f- m w, ~ V m ` « ~ a ~l. .~. ~~ -~ o a~ ~, a~ ~ ~~~ ~~ A ~ a M ~ ~ O ~ W ~ d (~ •O w I d C ~ ~_ U ~ ~ - ~ ~+ A s° O c ~ 0 d a+ U p '~ O L O ~. ~' ~. Q^v~ ~QQD~ SbFj 3 O O O O~ O~ O~ C1 O~ O~ O~ O~ f~1 V1 ~ [~ T O~ Q~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ h ~ y _ _ O~ N ~ N ~ _ O _ e+'i o~ .. ... .. > c W .~~~ .Yip W J •. J -~ P 4" V Q) ~ ~ ®1 g ~a ~~ ~ ~ !~ /N~~ Gp ~ V ~ a ® ~ ~ ~ g g b ~ ~ Z (.~ C ~~o D ~gg~ O O O Q k pgS$ 3 5~ 8 ~e O ~~ _. .,.. a n m YI O - O ma N h O 1 1 1 I i __~~~~'~ ~. a CI ~1 1 °L v o= 3 m m V) Hd0 9 db Z M Yh YHA ¢ a d Om ~ ~ GL OOZ CC iaa~$ O o E~ ~ O __°O~m u QQ OpC Vl Y q6 ~ ODO 6 ~ C W ~ e J ¢OD 4 d $ o E°cp C ~ C - a~diw o 019 C Y C B N m wW2 T T dd0 w L C S ~ n~ wdm V d0 d~ E O E O~ w w w O O ' ~ O Y O w 9 .Q Cafi2m dT0 ' l'la Oma w ¢ OJ Od Cm omES z o 0 a « O I-I^ ~ a a 1 1 N Q) 7 LL tl1 A ~ _A ~mm ,tl b W A ~ ~ ~ ~ a '~ (~ A ® ~. 7 N a o- 4° •~n ' A (Il e d ~ fy F' ~ N `L'3 ~' L ~ ~ C d ~ao~ 999 °OD ~ ao O $~ ° m m N N O ° o A VL {{~~ L p0°~O _~ Oq Off= yO COp 16aj0 O n^ of ~°~ a d ^ ° o >- o c~co y o ^~J _ 6~~ C °W OOO w C o $ g c ak ° ° ¢ $ N E o N W a i= V a Pa S A S a m' w Z ~ =tv ^~^^m _O m0 E E ° c (`~ r d 7 OI LL O O N ~ ~ g ~ d A ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ W Q ~ A "' U ~ o- ~ W ~ ~ P A fA I 6 ~_ ~ a ~ ~ L @1 ® _C V O .~ A ~ ~ OD C~~~ d O O e O yp 0 O q A 00 N N O a L° °0 y ° a Y v ~E o L°~ ava~$ c o n^ Y •e of 0=0~0 ~ ° o ° O ~- q ~$G ~ ~ ° N o ¢ a a m A ~ °Oo ~~ o Y1 o w ° e ~ 6 G Y C A a. m_ _ NN wWZ _ _ 3 Ye_ e°uoc mo oi+ O u d 7 Of LL O O e N '~ ~ g O O O ~' ~ ~ ar A O v O ~ a ~ O ~ ~ ~ A 9 ~s~N V ~~'J P U e- ~ ~ H ~ O y ~ ~ 2 ~ m W m ~ ~ .. 4° O N d ~ ~ C U O o O ~ ee ~ ~ ... QooO 04°°~ ~ ti~ ~ O vc o 0 v o o= q hov ~ i^ C Z^ O r m~ O 02 O Ogp °o o mm n~a`~$ o n ` of QO~~ ° ^ m m - a p A y c ^ c A 6 ^ e' ^ ~Ov o pp' C o _w ~ O h¢ O c e ~ ^w= m m~^uc m0 0 u N = c LV _ of E q N A W B P P LL O O r y Ql .~~. A r~ ~ m d d ~ ~ S ~ ~ j A 7 N V t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A tlf b ~ ~.. ~+ U 0 O b O ~ Q .,. d w H d L U C 0 ~pd~ ad 5 O ~ 0 O V 4 p N ~a0 d O Q •~ Z O _ 0 ~ O~ O p` D OZ Y m0 a`aa-$ n^ mE OmO~m c o N a ~_ O. n ~ o c~c$a OW 060 r c C 0 u m N w 0 T O Q A n T d 7 O/ O O N B @1 ~ d .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ I ~ ®~~ @S '~ ~ o-_ ~ ~ P ~ N aA = ~ sue. P (A N 0 ~ ~ ~ C U ~ ~1 .~ O d A 000 ~oo~~ O 8`o 0 m m ° 4 m; '0g i Yom' ' ~ 2 d m cm o s0o s a`Sa`~$ O mO~ m n^ of C pa ~ O 0 C an d ~ O ~ ~ C O q L W=$ O ¢°O tj E°co a~aO°>= cY 4 qW-j aOp m.~~mv OO m~E A Q A a U N @1 @1 r ~ ~ 'moo $ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ®~ ~ '~ ~ ®~.~ ® ~ ~ ® ~ h LL O O P B U .~ A b A n T 7 N -_ e.+ .~,, N to ® d ~, U v ~~~~ ~od~ ~ tiv ~ ~ ~. ~. o ~ ~ ~ M ~ Vy O~ O~ O~ .r O~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ N r r ~... (} O O _~ _~ g 6 ~~~~ ~pp~ O Bo == V O O~ ON A N h 0 0 LO um ~ - C 2 0 ~ ~ pL 0 02 m _ ` o a`a Q.'8 O ° o n N m O ~ - O m y on °o m E o a c q 0 m ra G q6 A J BOO 6 ~ C pp W X00 w ¢O Fj p 0 $ ~ Ew ° OC - e n a' c . e 5 m iv r d 7 Of LL O O 1 °` ~ ~ g A r,~ b y, A ~ 'o ~ g ~ N ~ (~ U ~ o- ~ @' !0 r1 ~ ~ (~ W ~ ~ ~ I ®'~ ~ ~ ~ e y ~ ~ a ~j ~ l0 ~ c} U e~ ~ o d (~ ~ v QOOQ d°O°0 °°°° ~ O C O _~ _~ L ~ 0 0/q0 O o~ yn qY-p O q ° Zq m Oq 0o7' ` m m a£a ~$ o Eo E OoOna c ~ i c~c$ as q J °p 8W3go ¢° p` ~ o o° E °c ~ a' a° i ~p 5 ° IS N N nW2 a L q_c4 n~ngm -°_~ =~ E 0 N 0 L q 0 a u U E 0 N d 7 LL O O N ~ ~ g ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ fd g 7 ~ N ~ ~ p ~ ~~ ® , n- l`0 r~ ~ ~ W N ' ® ~ ~ ~ O P ® a ~ ~ m ~ ~U V .~ A M ~ P ~ v ~ R ~ao~ g ~pp~ O O O G R o ye $.o m O w m~ - mC e Zm m -~ ~ O c m y mQ .e E E o° m c ^ w o ~ c o o ¢O £j o o v Ecu ~p f~ N 3 ^W Z G C B m e m m G YL p E a 3 3 E €~-_ W 6 2 M l'1 v 6 Om6 p z 0 a ~o noa J 0 m m ~ Imo Y m Y H 0 OC O ~_ iaa-$ s` OCC~O~up Cm u e o W~ p 0 m e~^OC U ~ m ^ c°°= a E E u g~aam a3 m m o om OmE = ~/+ ~ a Z N N y Of LL Y/ '~ A U I~^ VI ® ~ tl• ~`` 1~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ' ® ~ ~ ~ d ~ N Q ~ a ~ ~ ~ ®U V ~ o ~O O ~ v ~ao~ epp~ b0 O a nom= = % Hmo m G ~ ma ~ m _ cm x a m o 2 o mm c a~°`~$ o c m ¢ E° O ~~O~m u °m ~ me q1 m a cE m D C OR_~p°4 W tmn ¢° °OJ E c~E°c~ O V a=~i= m o q o° ¢ O~L~ aWZ m~mmp U _ ~ N c~ a ~ 4~? ?O o pE E l i N N 61 7 Q1 LL O O N ^ ~ ~ ~ A @1 e~ b g ~ rr~~~ 7 b V r ~ ~ Q ~ V W ~ O d I ~~ (9 @ d ~e> N ~ ~ a ~7 ~ E ~®U V 0 A O ~' P v ~~0~ T ~OD~~ O w c m0 om m m y you Z b uou~o m A m = O O~ $ um a`~u`.g$ o Ea OmO~`m ~ a c° 'E ~ oA O°1c dJ O 6~ O a ¢ m E OO OO oc n ~~ we ~~ 0 0 N O m 0 6 U M N m 7 Q) LL O O N W ~' ~ ~ N ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~h ~ ~ Q ~rmW ~ ~ d I 'p ~ ~~~ ~ r~ O to a ~~OE ~ ~U V .~ O d QOOC aaos ~a$~ 0o g O C s y~y N m O m m C m ~ O~ O _• Om OC7' m `cm uia~$ n^ of sO ~C~a O C C• OR (j ~ppC ^~ J 6~ O L W t O o c bb Q°p`b Ego a=a>° mWZ ^~^oC c o 4 _ mma o0 u~E a ^o Q a Q LL N q~ 6 C$ `~ 7 ® ~ _V ® ~ " ~~ ® ~ ~ O O .~ A n.. ~. N d 7 Ol ~ W ~ N ~_ d 'A ~ 6e ~ ~S y r~ O N a O E ~ U Q~0 °O°D~ ~ OD S 0 ~~~ ~~,~~ n 0 0 O ®gall~e~peg c~~ ~C~~~ I[~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~erside bounty '~'~spo~tion ~o~ission Wilbur Smith Associates 3600 Lime Street, Suite 226 ]i~iaerside, California 92501 Contact: IItobert A. IDaais 'Telephone: (714) 294-0566 O O ~ 'Fable ®f ~nge>~lts Chapters Page No. I. Introduction ................................... ............. 1 Report Organisation .......................................... 2 II. Proposed Project .... ......................................... 3 Land Use Development Proposal ................................ 3 Project Praadmity to CARP Roadway System ......:.................. 5 Project Trip Generation and Regional Significance ................... 6 III. TrafficForecasu ............................................... 8 Traffic Analysis Zone Refinement ................................ 9 Socio-Economic Data Refinements .............................. 10 Trip Generation ............................................ 11 Roadway Network Refinements ................................ 11 Traffic Assignment Scenarios .................................. 13 Traffic Projections ....... ........................... 14 O . .. 1V. Traffic Impact Assessment .......... 15 ............................. CARP Roadway Link Service ................................... 15 CARP Intersections Levels ........... 16 .......................... Other Regional Routes ....................................... 16 V. Findings ..................................................... 19 a Fable ®f Q~onten~s (cont.) Illustrations Follows Page Figure 1 Project Location/CIVIPTIA Focused Study Area ...................... 3 Figure 2 RNSAN Traffic Analysis Zones ................................. 9 Figure 3 Focused Model Traffic Analysis Zones ............................ 9 Figure 4a RNSAN Year 2010 Dwelling Unit and Employment Forecasts ......... 10 Figure 4b Re-Distnbution of Dwelling Units and Employment ................. 10 Figure 4c Adjusted Year 2010 Dwelling Units and Employment Forecasu ......... 10 Figure 5 Year 2010 Focused RNSAN Model Highway Network ............... 12 Figure 6 Assumed Roadway Classifications ............................... 13 Figure 7 Projected Yeaz 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes on CMP System Without Project ............................................ 14 Figure 8 Projected Year 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes on CMP System With Project ............................................... 14 Figure 9 Projected Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service Without Project ............................................ 15 Figure 10 Projected Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service With Project ............................................... 15 Figure 11 CMP HCM Analysis Intersection Identification ..................... 16 Figure 12 CMP Intersection Approach Lane Configurations ................... 16 O O O Fable ®f intents (coat:) Tabulations page Table 1 RNSAN to CA~TIA Zone Correspondence ....................... 10 Table 2 Socio-Economic Summary ..................................... 12 Table 3 Year 2010 CIvIP Intersection Analysis ............................ 17 O ~ - d. ~trociuction The Traffic Impact Analysis (T'IA) contained herein has been prepared in response to and in accordance with Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements regarding land use development proposals. The scope of work, analysis approach, and traffic forecasting methodology applied in this study was developed through discussions with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) staff members responsible for review and coordination of CMPTIA documents. We acknowledge that the CMPTIA guidelines are undergoing change and are evolving along with the regional modeling tools which allow for this level of analysis. This not withstanding every effort has been made to comply with the intent and spirit of the CMP requtrements. Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines have been established in response to statutory requirements which mandate the development of a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems. The regional transportation system, on which land use impacts are to be assessed, has been defined by RCTC as the CMP roadway network. The TIA process O involves: 1. An initial determination of whether a proposal development project is regionally significant based on its potential level of peak-hour trip generation. Al] developments which are expected to generate more than 200 peak-hour trips are required to be reviewed for possible impacts on the CMP roadway system. 2. Utilization of RIVSAN consistent traffic model to project year 2010 traffic forecasts for conditions without and with the proposed development project. 3. Analysis of year 2010 traffic conditions using HCM methodology for calculating Level of Service (LOS) on the CMP roadway systems. The minimum LOS standard for the CMP system is "E". Any location along the CMP system found to operate at an LOS below "E" would require the development of a LOS Deficienry Plan. O Report ®rganization The CMPTIA report has been organized into five sections: I. Introduction - This section identifies the purpose of the study and desrnbes the organization and content of the report II. Proposed Project - Section II "Proposed Project" includes discussion of the project location, land use proposal, and regional significance of the project as it relates to peak-hour trip generation and the project's potential to impact the CMP roadway systems. III. Traffic Forecasu - This section outlines the RNSAN modeling procedures agreed on by SCAG and applied by WSA and the resulting Year 2010 traffic forecasts for conditions without and with the project. O N. Traffic Impact Assessment - This section presents the traffic operations analysis and results for conditions on the CMP roadway system without and with the project. V. Findings and Recommendations - This section summarized the TIA findings O regarding project related traffic LOS impacts and identifies mitigation requiremenu for the CMP roadway system. In addition to the five sections which comprise the body of the report, a series of appendices are provided which include substantial supplemental information pertaining to the Temecula Urban Core Projects, RNSAN mode] and focussed model input/output, and HCM worksheets. O 2 0 ~ I[~. Proposed Project The Kemper Temecula Urban Core Projects consist of the following three Specific Plans: S.P. 1 - Campos Verdes S.P. 255 -Winchester Hills S.P. 263 -Temecula Regional Center The three proposed Specific Plan projects aze all located within the northern portion of the City of Temecula, east of Interstate 15 and immediately north and south of Winchester Road (State Route 79). The exact location and configuration of the individual Temecula Urban Core Projects is illustrated in Figure 1. Land Use Development Proposal Proposed land use for the three Temecula Urban Core projects is presented below for the O three Specific Plan projects. Detailed information pertaining to individual project land use is provided in Appendix A. Campos Verdes - As proposed, the Campos Verdes Specific Plan consisu of approximately 132.9 gross acres. The Campos Verdes development would include the following proposed uses: Single family detached residential (approximately 206 dwelling uniu); Multi-family attached residential (approximately 644 dwelling uniu); Neighborhood retail shopping center (13S gross acres); Commercial office (10.4 gross acres); and Open Space/Retention Basin (13.5 gross acres). For the purpose of the traffic study, the project was divided into seven development planning areas. These project planning areas aze depicted in Appendix A in Figure CV-1 and proposed land uses aze summarized in Table CV-1. O 3 O O O P .9 b A pC 0 0 C .q d i I W r V m 0 a 0 U C 7 V F N N 4 a s ~ ~ W fA arl O As reflected in'Table CV-1, single family residential uniu would be located in development Planning Areas 6 and 7 (refer to Figure CV-1) which are adjacent to existing low density residential development. The proposed higher density multi-family residential development in Planning Areas 3 and 5 is, for the most pazt, arranged in a manner which would buffer the lower density residential development form commercial uses proposed along Ynez Road. The Campos Verdes neighborhood retail center and office pazk aze planned to be located adjacent to Ynez Road at the Winchester Road and General Kearny Road intersections respectively. A parkJretention basin is ptnposed for Planning Area 1. Winchester Hills - As proposed the Winchester Hflls Specific Plan would consist of approximately 569.5 gross acres. The Winchester Ht71s development would include the following approximate development units for each of the proposed land uses: Residential uses of various densities (totaling 1,948 dwelling unite on 339.6 acres); Business Park uses (120 acres); . Commercial Office (11.4 acres); Neighborhood Commercial (15.6 acres); Elementary School (11.2 acres); and Neighborhood Park (18.6 acres). O The Winchester Hills project would consist of three principal development sub-areas. These project sub-areas are depicted in Appendix A in Figure WH-1. Proposed land use for each sub-area and planning area is summarized in Table WH-1. Sub-area A would consist of a mix of residential uses ranging in density from medium (2 to 5 DU/AC) to very high (14 to 20 DU/AC). Also included in this sub-area would be an elementary school and neighborhood parks. Sub-area B would consist of Business Park type uses including a mix of light industrial, commercial office and low intensity commercial. Sub-area C is designated as a Neighborhood Commercial Center. Temecula Regional Center - As proposed the Temecula Regional Center would consist of approximately 201 gross acres. The Regional Center is assumed to include the following approximate development units for each of the proposed land uses: Core retail center - 1,125,000 SFGIA; Fringe area retail - 548,000 SFGIA; Fringe area office - 810,000 SFGLA; and Hotels - 250 rooms. O 4 The Temecula Regional Center would consist of three principal project development areas. O These project sub-areas aze depicted in Appendix A in Figure TRC-1 and proposed land use is summarized in Table TRC-1. Sub-Area la, located in the northeastern portion of the site, would include a mix of retail, office and hotel uses. Sub-Area 2 would consist of an enclosed retail shopping mall and several detached cltuters of retat7 uses. Sub-Areas lb and 3 would include a mix of office and retat~ uses. The ultimate distnbution of land use within the site will be a factor of future mazket conditions. Specific land uses and square footage of floor area may vary in the final development plan. The proposed land use assumed in this study is considered a 'likely" development scenario but is not assured. Project Proximity to CIV[P Roadway System The Temecula Urban Core Projects are located in the immediate vicinity (within one mile) of the following two CMP highways: ° Winchester Road/State Route 79; and ° Interstate 15. Both Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center have frontage along Winchester Road. O The Winchester Hills project has frontage along the I-15 right-of--way. The interchange of Winchester Road and I-15 is also located within one mile of the three Temecula Urban Core Projecu. Three other freeway interchanges which are part of the CMP roadway system are located within two miles of the Temecula Urban Core Projects. These include: ° I-15 interchange at Rancho California Road; ° I-15 interchange at Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and ° I-215 interchange at Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The above mentioned CMP facilities have been identified as being potentially affected by the Temecula Urban Core Projects. O 5 O Project T'rip'Generation and Regional 5igniticance As required in the Local Agenry CMP I-Iattdbook, project trip generation has been assessed for the three indmdual Specific Plan projects. Trip generation estimates developed for Specific Plan EIR Tzaffic Studies (for each individual project) are provided in Appendix A (Tables CV-2 and 3; Tables WH 2 and 3; and Tales TRC 2 and 3) and aze summazized below. Temecula Urban Core Project Campos Verdes (S.P. 1) Winchester Ht11s (S.P. 255) Temecula Regional Center (S.P. 263) Trip iaeneration EDaiiy t~M Peak )Honr PM Peak )Hour 16,184 997 1,179 46,702 3,058 3,582 64,850 3,631 4,724 Total 127,736 7,686 9,485 Daily vehicle trip rates used for the Temecula Urban Core Projects aze based on rates O published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Peak-hour trip generation estimates developed in the Specific Plan EIR Traffic Studies were developed via TRANPLAN modeling procedures where the daily vehicle trip productions and attractions were factored by trip purpose (e.g. home-based work, home-based other, and non-home based). The factors used to develop peak-hour trip generation were based on NCHRP average factors which have been adjusted slightly to reflect SCAG's-RNSAN model trip peaking characteristics. Although the peak-hour trip generation presented for the Temecula Urban Core Projects is not derived directly from ITE trip generation factor, the earlier study trip generation results make this a mute point. Regardless of the peak-hour trip generation assessment methodology, the finding indicate: all three of the Specific Plan projects exceed the 200 peak-hour trip generation threshold which establishes that the projects regionally significant, have potential to impact the' CMP roadway system, and requires the submittal of a CMPTIA; and O 6 two of the three Specific Plan projects exceed the 2,000 peak-hour trip generation threshold which requires the CMPTTA to be based on 6ndiags of Year 2010 RIVSAN O model-based forecasts which include the proposed projects in the model's socio- economic database. The three Specific Plan land use proposals have been compared to the threshold land use intensity/trip generation examples given in Attachment "A" of the Local Agenry CMP Handbook, and the findings regarding the need for a CMP Analysis and RIVSAN modeling effort have been verified. The precise number of TTE based peak-hour trips is not needed since the RIVSAN modeling approach uses dwelling unit and employment input which, in this case, would be based directly on the project's proposed land use. O O 7 O ~ ffia °g'ac ~orecas~s The basic CMPTIA approach and RNSAN modeling methodology for the Temecula Urban Core Projects was dtscttssed with both RCTC and SLAG staff responsible for overseeing and ~, reviewing CMPTIA efforts. in mid-August 1992 WSA and City of Temecula staff meet with RCTC staff to review general CMP requirements and to discuss the Temecula Urban Core Projects. At this meeting it was agreed that: 1. A CMPTIA would be prepared for the Temecula Urban Core Projecu and that the study would address the potential cumulative impacts of the three proposed Specific - Plan projects on the C1vIP roadway system. 2. Since the updated Year 2000 RNSAN model impacts are yet avat~able, the Year 2010 RNSAN model would be used as the basis for the Temecula Urban Core Projects CMPTIA. 3. WSA would coordinate directly with SCAG regarding the methodology and O procedures to be used during the modeling effort. Wilbur Smith Associates met with SCAG staff responsible for CIviP analysis modeling coordination within Riverside County to discuss the basic modeling procedures which should be used for analyzing the Temecula Urban Core Projects. During this meeting it was agreed that: 1. A "focused" modeling approach would be used where the basic Year 2010 RNSAN model (e.g. regional network, zones, and socio-economic inputs) would remain intact except in the immediate project study area. 2. The RIVSAN traffic analysis Zone structure would be disaggregated in the vicinity of the Temecula Urban Core Projecu along with roadway network refinements to allow for more detailed traffic loading on the local street network. 3. The Year 2010 RNSAN roadway network would be refined (augmented) in the project vicinity to add existing and planned local roadways which would have an effect on traffic distribution on the CMP roadway system and at CMP system intersections to be analyzed in the study. O 8 4. The Year 2010 RIVSAN socio-economic data would be disaggregated according to O the more detailed zone system in the focussed study azea. Control totals for the Year 2010 RIVSAN socio-economic data would be maintained for the 'without project" scenario. The "with project" scenario would be allowed to show net increases in households and employment. During this meeting, WSA requested RNSAN Model Year 2010 TRANPLAN input files including the highway network, socio-economic and mode choice data, and TRANPLAN jobstream. Traffic Analysis Zone Refinement The existing confguration of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) as they appeaz in the RNSAN model, are illustrated in Figure 2. The City of Temecula is comprised of TAZ 440 and portions of TAZ's 434, 436, 439, 441, and 446. For the purpose of this CMPTIA, these six RIV$AN zones within Temecula and two zones (TAZ's 437 and 447) in the Murrieta area were disaggregated 44 zones. The diseaggregated TAZ's are depicted in Figure 3. The correspondence between original RNSAN zones and disaggregated CMP analysis zones is summarized in Table 1 and graphically shown in Figure 3. O The re-configuration of the zone system was generally based on physical boundaries formed by the local arterial street network and boundaries formed by the Temecula Urban Core Projects. In the "focused" model, the areas which represent the Temecula Urban Core Projects are comprised of the following TAZ's: Campos Verdes (S.P. 1) - TAZ 444; Winchester Hills (S.P. 255) - TAZ's 627,628, 629, and 630; and Temecula Regional Center (S.P. 263) - TAZ's 438, 442, and 443. O 9 J V O O ~~ ~r._J ,J ~._J 1 tlI pp®, ' d 1~ V _~ 0 o ` p ~ U ~ C ~~ ~ ~ ~ w d U ~_ o ~o~ ~dc ~ ~Y. O O O ~Aq tl/ L~ r p~ b ~~®11 (.~ 1~ M tl/ A A® W ~ ~U ~ ~ C ~ ~A a ~~~ t~ ® ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~, ~qo ~ aoo~~ ~ O Table 1 )R~/S~1 gp CpgP')C'fA ~AIIe CorresgoIIdence Temecula ilrban Core Projects RIVSAN Zone Equivalent TUCP CIv1PTIA Zones 434 434, Z33, 234, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 70b, 707 436 436, 205, 207, 209, 210, 211, 478, 482, 484, 485 437 437,623 439 439, 235, 349, 350, 432, 433, 435, 438, 442, 443, 444, 445, 479, 489 440 440, 229, 429, 480, 481, 483, 708 441 441, 486, 487, 488 446 446, 336, 337, 338, 339, 341, 490, 620, 621, 622 447 447, 430, 431 O Socio-Economic Data Refinements O The disaggregation of Socio-economic data for the eight affected RNSAN. zones was performed based on existing land use inventories and approved/planned development summaries available through WSA's involvement in the Temecula General Plan Program. The review of RIVSAN socio-economic data for the study azea zones resulted in the need tore-distnbute dwelling unit and employment forecasu within the "focused" study azea. This was done in the development of the Year 2010 "focused" model input for the "Without Project" scenario. Special care was taken to maintain the RNSAN control totals for Year 2010 Socio-economic data. The manner in which dwelling unit and employment values were re-distn'buted is graphically depicted in Figures 4a through 4c. Original and modified versions of the RNSAN Year 2010 "Socio-economic Data" for the zones within the focused study area are provided in Appendix B. 10 O ~~ m O ~._J ~ 'r._~ g ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ° b O @1 ® ~` ® ~ r~ ~ g O ® ~ V p ~ C ~ ® ~ d W ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ g h 0 O ~o~ $$$~ D O O ~~ ~~ O ~~-J ,J 5 .~ ~ ~~ .e '~ o ® ~ ~ ~ AU ® ~A ®~~ ~ ~ ~ g U ~~E _~ I OD ~ao~ ~~°°°D ~ ~~._J O O ~~ ~~ ~~ ~._J O 'r._~ i ~~ ~~ g ~ e ~ e ~ ~ d ~~ ®~ ®~ ~. ~ b ~~ ~~ ~ ~ @~ `~ a ~ ~~ .q Q op ~oD ~ v 0 A 0 c E O For the "With Project" scenario, proposed land use for the Temecula Urban Core Projects was converted to socio-econotnicbased data using "land Use Density Conversion Factors" developed for SLAG by the Cordoba Corporation. In the case of residential land-use, the proposed number of single-famt7y and multi-family dwelling units are used directly. Non-residential uses aze converted to employment using factors which are applicable to the specific land use. The results of this procedure aze ~+~**+*nar;~Pd in Table 2. RIVSAN Year 2010 "Socio-economic Data" input for project-related zones m the focused model are provided in Appendix B. Trip Generation Socio-economic based trip generation for the CMP focused model was performed using standard RIVSAN modeling procedures. The trip generation component of the RIVSAN mode] is performed independent of the TRANPLAN softwaze package. It involves a series of FORTRAN programs which have been developed by SCAG specifically for the RIVSAN model. Roadway Network Refinements O Within the focused study area, the RIVSAN Year 2010 roadway network was augmented with local arterial streets to allow for more refined traffic loadings on the network. Network refinements were actually made in conjunction with the disaggregation of RIVSAN zones. The Year 2010 focused model highway network in the immediate study area is illustrated in Figure 5. Designated CMP roadways and selected CMP analysis intersections are also depicted in Figure 5. The degree to which the local network was augmented was based on several factors. These included: The need to provide sufficient local street network detail to allow for more realistic traffic turning movements at CMP intersections which require HCM analysis; Recognition that many of the programmed and planned local arterial roadways would be implemented by Year 2010 or well before that date; and Recognition of programmed and planned improvements to the CMP roadway system in the study area. O 11 .~ u _ ~ ' a o: ~- ~ a o $ : $ o ~ $ o0 00 ~ i 3' ~ ~i: r e ~o O Z c U E T O G E N e~ r r " ~ ~ h h .. - O O O ~- N ~ O r i'' 'y ~ h .~ ~. ~ y. Nf n q 4+ a ~ E ~ N N1 O d u V e ~ c y C °D c T .~ ~ ~ $ -, $ ~_ O O O h ~' h~ O O O O b ~ m 4 F " ~ ~ 3 Y m Q ~ ' o ~ E . ~p ~p ~ N f O ~ O O T ~ O O O O ~ A E N a F N N A A F F F . c. a ~. n ~ - in m e~f w N O F n. ~ N Q v uu L v^1 y O h N C O. • u o i i ~ ~ fN v m v h O C A :J '_' - v V ~ ~, ~ . w V - ~ r 00 O~ O :? 00 N N1 ~ b ~ e b v e ~ ~ u ~ e t u E ~ `~ e N ¢ ~ N a N a u E v ~ ~ ~ E ~ 3 F . F F F F F 0 O O c Rt B! ~+v b t q~ 6 A _~ g ~_ Q 6 V d U e W a v d E F 0 0 m w S r@ d ;' J i l O Roadway links included in the focused study area were coded using standard RNSAN mode] link attnbutes to approximate the assumed focused azea roadway network classifications depicted in Figure 6. The TRANPLAN based Interactive Network Information System (NIS) was used to build the augmented highway network within the focused study area. A reducev plot of the focused area network, including centroids and centroid connectors is provided in Appendix B. For comparison purposes a plot of the original Year 2010 RNSAN highway network is also provided in Appendix B. Traffic Assignment Scenarios The Year 2010 CMP focused model was used to develop traffic forecasts for the 'without project" conditions. The "without project" assignments were generated using the disaggregated RNSAN socio-economic data. The 'Wvith project" assignments included additional dwelling units and employment associated with the Temecula Urban Core Projects. Assignments for both the 'without project" and 'with project" conditions were developed using the same highway network. Using the RNSAN Yeaz 2010 TRANPLAN job stream, daily, and peak hour traffic forecasts were developed for the two analysis scenarios. Intersection turning movements O were generated from the model output for all major intersections within the study azea. Morning and evening period O 13 O O O om ° GC mm m oO mm JJ ma [c ag ~ w ~a-u JJJJ mm C mJ O omma-°O~c°es ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° T1 -ET ~~~JyO Oe og~~ cy~=,~~we ooooY~mm1+ J = Y LL it 4 > > ~ ~ N ~ H J O ~ m ma m j LL IL IL LL~~ Q 1 m V a ~~ ~ ; ~ o _~ ~ 0 ~ U ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ O yg~ i O The second farm of adjustment involved factoring up all volumes on the non-freeway facilities in the study azea. This adjustment was based on a comparison of RNSAN Yeaz 1990 traffic assignments on Winchester Road (the principal C1vIP roadway being analyzed) with existing traffic counts. This comparison indicates an approximate 5 percent under estimation by the model. Other local arterials revealed even greater deviations, however, these were more clearly attributable to the coarseness of ffie RIVSAAI zone system and corresponding centroid connector locations. Year 1990 assignments for the freeway were somewhat higher than existing volumes so the factoring was limited to non-freeway fan7ities. The net effect of the post-processing effort was a general increase in the daily and peak hour traffic assignments for all o_f the CMP roadways and intersections except for the freeway segments. It should also be noted that Year 2010 RNSAN traffic forecasu for this area generally appear low for an 1&yeaz forecast period. This observation does not suggest calibration related problems, however. For this azea of the RNSAN model is more clearly related to the relatively low incremental increases reflected in the Year 2010 socio-economic data. For the purpose of this study, we aze not at liberty to make azbitrary changes in the official RNSAN mode] socio-economic forecast data set. O Traffic Projections Year 2010 daily traffic projections for the'rvithout" and'~vith" project scenarios are depicted in Figures 7 and 8 respectively. In these 5gures, traffic volumes are posted only for CMP roadways and arterial roadways immediately adjacent to the CMP factlities. Peak-hour turning volume forecasts are provided in Appendix C as part of the HCM intersection analysis worksheets. O 14 5 O 0 ~ ~~ a ~ a~ ~ o ~~~ ss~ ~~~ a~ g 0 4y I,~ tl p 6 1P r Ag e ~ 0 P 6 C d °e d 0 4 0 V C W A m v d E F O ,~ A f~ g O O ~a ~ ~~ $~b gu K8 ~B ~N~ ~ d o c ®e~ . ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ m ® ~ ~ d U ~~a ~ ~~ A ~ ~ ® ~ E P 6 d 3 O ~ ~I. ~'c impact Assessiaaent The traffic impact analysis for the Temecula Urban Core Projects includes an assessment of Year 2010 service levels on CIvIP roadway segments and intersections within the focused study area. The same analysis has been performed for conditions without the development projects to evaluate the net change in service levels due to the projects. Cl~i[P Roadway Link Service Levels Roadway link volume-to-capacity ratios were calculated for all ClvlP roadways within the study area. These volume-to-capacity ratios and corresponding service levels aze summarized in Figure 9 (without project condition) and Figure 10 (with project condition). The results of this analysis indicates: all freeway segments would operate at Level of Service D or better both with and without the project; and . O all segments of Winchester Road would operate at Level of Service A without the project and Level of Service B or better with the project. Freeway service levels were found to be identical for the with and without project conditions. Differences can be noted in the freeway segment volume-to-capaciry ratios, however, the variance in 0.02 or less. On I-15, north of Winchester Road, volume-to-capaciry ratios were found to be slightly lower with the project than without. South of Winchester Road, volume- to-capacity ratios were slightly higher with the project than without the project. Volume-to- capacity- ratios on I-215 were the same for both conditions. Projected conditions on Winchester Road revealed more significant differences with the Temecula Urban Core Projects, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Even with the relatively intense use associated with this project, however, service levels were found to be well within acceptable limits. O 15 .L O _~ 6 G~~+ d 7 O~ _~ O ~ N C~ d ~ ~ a` aq ~ ~~ U ~ ~ A \ ® ~ ~ g W ~ ~ ~ ~ E Q b d O a8~8~ e O V V8 S V YfC bC~ fyca~08OSS /~~JJ ~~ ax d ~[e O O 0 P d V ~ LL 6 p~~p tl/ P e ~p b .e C ~ .r m ~ O ~ ~+ a ~ ~ ~ g ~U ~ ® c ~ ~ a \ g~ ~ ~ ~ U d P b b O '~~~~ ggeg~ °866 us~mm oE;€a5 E E a ~ 5 i~~/J ~~ x. a ~~ s 9 O CIVtP %ntersection Levels While the roadway link analysis provides a general indication of potential impact, the intersection analysis provides a more critical assessment. HCM signalized intersection analysis was performed for CMP intersections identified in Figure 11. HCM analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Intersection approach land assumptions are graphically summarized in Figure 12. The resulu of the HCM intersection analysis are summarized in Table 3. Findings of the HCM analysis indicate that all of the CMP intersections in the focused study area would operate at Level of Service C or better for both development conditions except for one intersection. Under the 'with project" condition, the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection would operate at Level of Service D during the P.M. peak-hour. In the majority of cases, service levels 'without" and "with" the project were evaluated to be the same. Those intersection locations which were found to drop by a service level with the project, were typically those which are located on Winchester Road immediately adjacent to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. At these and most other intersections analyzed the P.M. peak-hour delay was more significantly impacted by the Temecula Urban Core Projects than the A.M. peak-hour delay. O Other Regional Routes Traffic forecasts were reviewed for both scenarios along principal regional routes which would provide access to and from the Temecula Urban Core projects. This review resulted in the following observations: As was noted earlier, traffic forecasu along the I-15 corridor, north of Winchester Road, were found to be slightly lower than with the project. All other regional routes serving the area, including I-15 (south of Winchester Road), I-215, and Winchester Road were found to have minor increases in traffic of approximately 1,500 vehicles or less per day. The differences in forecasts on these regional routes become less significant with distance and typically drop to insignificant levels (less than 200 vehicles per day) within approximately five to ten miles from the project site. O 16 • P O O _® C ~_ ~_ d b 0 b b ee~ _A r u 0 a `o V C W m 7 v d E F°= g s 9 O O ~ ~.. L._ p L~ ~J g -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ N 5 ~_ s ~ s- a a 3M10 tl31Np~ ItlMOF»! a / ~ "~ SaaUtl BS SI-1 N~ 6 N O s ^a M ~~ Q~ N m 4.~ Q"N '@l 73NA ~? g h 'P r* ~y..y~ ~~~ ~a '@! 19tS~OwM .9~ ~ 'P r> ps ~ N ~ NHS -a a ~ `N r N11 V `~' A w `_ ~~ ,N,`` QJ 9 ' CdMIH 8N SI-1 G ~ N @l tl3L53101CM A ~J !7 "D 8^8^yy P L~~ N y s (q `~ Q"•N (9 .. ~~b d' 6J11Ytl BS SI H ~?'~ N r* W Na 'Qy V1WpMNw _1Pg~ ~ N N~ 0 ^~ qb C ~p b W N P d U O d A ~~ !/ C W A w E 6OD~ ~oo°D~ ~ 0 00~~~~ aaaonn nnaoDo ~o~vvv N NJ~ ear, vem w~o~na ~1 1 9 ~ ~ ~£° 1 ~ ~ ~1 MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD. MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD. ~~ ~ `~. ~ ~a N Z •~- i i q9 ~~ ^~1 ~ a `~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ MURREITA HOT SPRINGS RD. MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD. ~ ~i a 1 °3' a 1 ~ 1 ~, ~ ~ m rn m a _~ _~ N I N 1 "ST CRAP Baa$~PS~cg6®n e~~~O~c~ ~~aua; COeuffug~nP~g60ns ~EP7IECUIG ~P~~P1 COPC ~POJs:C4S FB~IAPC 92~ 0 O O Table 3 Year 2010 CMP Intersee8on Analysis Temecula Urban Core Pmjeds Smnario W/O Project With Project I.D. No, Intersection Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay 1 Winchester RdJ!-15 - SB Cm and OH Ramps AM B 102 B 11.0 PM B 15.8 C 163 2 Winchester Rd./I-15 - NB On and Oft Ramps AM B 128 B 127 PM B 13.0 C 21.0 3 Winchester Rd./Ynez Rd. AM C 733 C 23.6 PM C 21.2 D 31.4 4 Winchester Rd./Regional Center Day. AM A 4.2 B 6.9 PM A 3S B 93 5 Winchester Rd./Regional Center Rd. AM C 15S C l83 PM C 16.2 C 1i~.2 6 Winchester Rd./Margarita Rd. AM C 20.7 C 23.8 PM C 19.6 C 19.8 7 Nicolas Rd./V/inchester Rd. AM A 4.1 A 4.6 PM A 3S A 4.4 8 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd./Winchester Rd. AM C 17S C 17.9 PM C 18.0 C 273 9 Rancho Calif Rd./I-15 - SB On and OH Ramps AM B 124 B 10.4 PM C 17.8 C 227 10 Rancho Cali[ Rd./l-15 - NB On and Off Ramps AM C 21.1 C Z28 PM B 203 C 224 11 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd./l-15 - SB On and O[f Ramps AM B 7.8 B 10.0 PM C 220 C 15.8 17 Table 3 Yenr 2010 CMP Intersection Analysis Temecula Urban Core Projects Scenario W!O Project With Project I.D. No. Intersection Peale Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay 12 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-15 - NB On and Off Ramps AM B 1Z7 B 9.2 PM B 13.1 B 103 13 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd/I-215 - SB On and Off Ramps AM B 122 B 13S PM C 24.9 C 223 14 Murrieta Hot Springs Rdll-215 - NB On and Off Ramps AM B 13S B 10.9 PM C 21.6 C 19.9 0 O O 18 ~. Fgndings 0 The CMP traffic impact analysis for the Temecula Urban Core Projects has generated the findings summarized below. 1). Level of service on the CMP roadway network would not drop below Level of Service D with the proposed projecu. 2). Programmed and planned CMP roadway improvements reflected in this analysis need to be implemented to accommodate cuatulative development represented in the Yeaz 2010 RNSAN socio-ewnomic forecast data. These improvements include: a). The widening of Winchester Road to six lanes between Mazgarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road; b). The widening of Winchester Road to a minimum of four lanes north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road; c). Improvements to the Winchester Road/I-15 interchange including widening the O Winchester Road bridge section to a minimum of four lanes and I-15 off-ramp widenings; and d). Improvements to the Murrieta Hot Springs Road interchanges at I-15 and I-215 including widening of the freeway off-ramps. 3). Various programmed and planned local arterial street improvements reflected in this analysis would need to be implemented to assure that service levels on the CMP roadway system do not fall below LOS )~ These improvements include: a). The construction of the Overland Drive overcrossing as a four-lane facility; b). The extension of Mazgarita Road as a four-lane facility north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; c). The extension of Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (minimum two-lane facility to accommodate the CMP model forecast); and O 19 d). Thewidening of Jefferson Avenue tofour-lanes from Date Street to Murrieta Hot O Springs Road. Although several other local arterial street improvemeno were assumed in the Year 2010 CMP focused model network (e.g. Washington Avenue, Madison Avenue, and Date Street overcrossing), these facilities attracted marginally significant traffic volumes which could be adequately accommodated by other facilities. It should be noted that all of the required CMP system improvements are included in either one of the two local Assessment Distrito (e.g. A.D. 161 and CFD 88-12), Riverside County's Southwest Area Road and Bridge Benefit District, or Measure A-related projects. Additionally, the required local arterial system improvements are included in one of the two local Assessment Districts mentioned earlier, would be constructed as part of the Temecula Urban Core Project development, or would be constructed by akeady approved development projects in the Murrieta area. O O 20 0 A~~~~~~ ~ O O ~a~ ~pp~ 9 9 b ~b dI e 5 a` I d f~ r~ R ~q J R q0 C ~_ ~q H I~1 ,® o M/ r ~..i N _ W ~ 1 ~ v i.n ~O ~O ~O ~D V~ W I I ~ ~D `~ ~O ~ ~ N O O O 0 O O Fable C~1-1 Assumed Land Use Campos ~Ierdes Development Planning Area entative Tact No. Gross ores n Size Unit Land Use 25213 Area 1 Pace18 & 9 13.5 Open Space Area 2 Parcel ? 10.4 9.3 Net Ac Commercial Office Area 3 Pazcel 4,5 & 6 22.2 377 D.U.'s° Multi Family Residential Area 4 Pacel l 13.5 10 Net Ac Neighborhood Retail Center Area 5 Pazce12 & 3 15.7 267 D.U.'s Multi Famt~y Residential Area 6 25214 27.1 141 D.U.'s Single Family Residential Area 7 25215 21 65 D.U.'s Single Family Residential Total 123 ' D.U. • Drellina Unit Notc: M addilioual 9S dross arses are inwlved in on-site r°adi B. BY LAND USE CATEGORY Land Use Size Unit Single Family Residenda] 206 D.U.'s Multi Family Residential 644 D.U.'s Neighborhood Retail Center 13S Ac. Commercial Office 10.4 Ac. 0 O O 0 .. U .-. C GI d ~ i ~ ~ ' 0 6!J n p fn W W ~ ~ ~ ' m ~ N U ,"' W O W J N ~~ e aOO~ vppv ~ooD O O A. Sub-area/Planniag Atra • Tabte WH-la Assumed Ind Use Winchester Hilts Specific Plan Sub-arez°/ Traffic Planning Area°° Model TAZ Aces Siu Unit Land Use A 1 398 13.8 235 D. U. Residential (14 to 20 dulac) 2 217 47.0 179 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 dulac) 3 399 31S 155 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 dulac) 4 401 17.8 297 D. U. Residential (14 to 20 du/ac) 5 390 29S 152 D. U. Residential (5 to 8 dulac) 6 395 72 72 Acres Neighborhood Park 9 213 60.8 258 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 du/ac) 10 212 18.6 18.6 Acres Ncighborhood Park 11 212 112 112 Acres Elementary School 12 402 54.9 179 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 du/ac) 13 403 44.6 175 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 du/ac) 14 216 39.7 318 D. U. Mobil Home (5 to 8 du/ac) 376.6 B 7 404 11.4 248.0 KSFFA Commercial Office 15 215 49.6 49.6 Acres Business Park 16 214 70.5 70S Aaa Business Park 1315 C 8 400 15.6 170.0 ICSFFA Neighborhood Comm. Cntr 523.7 ..-.-..., ..6.... , .........-.,..~ ........... ~c.v..v nyycnuu mr running Aro Loouon. Notc Aars do not include major ntseu, internal roadways, gtern-belt paseta (consisting of <SB amn) KSFEA - 7ltottsand sgwre fat o[ [loon aru. O D.U. • Dwelling Unit. B. Land Use Table WH-lb Assumed Land Use Winchester Specific Plaa Land Use Size .Unit Residential - Medium Density 946 D.U. - Medium High Density 152 D.U. - Very High Density 532 D.U. - Mobile Home 318 D.U. Residential Total 1,948 D.U. Elementary School 11.2 Acres Neighborhood Park 25.8 Acres Business Park 120.1 Acres Commercial Office 248.0 IGS)~'A Community Commercial 170.0 KSFFA O O O O O O 0 U .:. «. G G) G1 f4 ~ ~ ~' ~ O 6dJ ~ 0 ~ W W ~ ~ ~ ~ Z W is ~ W v W d J N W ~ = U U d b ~$ _® 0~00~ ~° D ~ OD a 'f'able T"RC-1 O O Assumed Land Use Regional Mall Alternative Temecula Regional Center BY DEVELOPMENT AREA Development Area ° Net Acres w Size Unit Land Use Sub-Area 1 la 39.20 250 lrsf Retat7 350 ksf Office 250 rooms Hotel lb 32.77 35 ksf Retail 420 lssf Office Sub-Area 2 97.80 1,225 ksf Retail (Mall) 250 ksf Retail (Detached from Mall) Sub-Area 3 5.49 13 ksf RetaII 40 lssf Office Tota] 175.26 - ltelel 101'IgYR 1. ' lsC - Tlwtttaad Squats Feet (Gems Isamble Fbor Atea) BY LAND USE CATEGORY Land Use Size Unit Retail Mall 1,125 ksf Retail 548 ksf Office 810 lssf Hotel 250 rooms Note: land ..v allaotiom aad squaee footage stated N the bbk ats based oo the dev~a cttremt bet guess" approtiemliam of how the site may be deeloped. O USE Single Family Center Office Park • - D.U. drnotn Dwelling Unit • - ts[ drnotes'Ibounnd Square Felt Table CV-2 Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Campos Verdes UNIT LOCATION OF D.U ° I ,~ 10 0 I Planning Areas 6 & 7 D.U 6 6 J Planning Areas 3& 5 ksf °°) Net Ac ~ :' 800 '' :` ~ Plannin¢ Area 4 Ac ~.._:,;;<:.:...:200:.?".?I Plannine Area 2 O O O O 1M r U a~ cCC C O ~:.i c~ s.. c a~ L^7 ~I .~ E~ a~ U_ h b it 0 o, E U ~ c ~ ~ ~ o c n G rr .-. v~ .. .r '. E.. ^-~ .. ~ ~. x0 ~ .. ~ ; ~, ~ ~ ~ o x ~ 6. U ~ C `" ,.., f~r1 ~ ti N N ~ ~ P1 ~ .r t"' iG ~ ~ W vi ao O~ N O er, t~ ~ x 0 ~ 7 °.° °cn° ~ a a ~ a W Y a~i ~ ~" ~_„ t~ ~ O e~ h N 'af N t~ .-. OO -ti O O. ¢ ~ ..7 ~. o `O v1 ~ o ° O~ n O O ~ ~ ' ° F J o O o a ~ Q' O A .r N 00 .ti .~-~ ~O .-~ L [-' U y ~ N N VJ o ~ z z ci o 0 w N `~ ~ e1 N .-+ h U ¢ A ~ C U U ~ ~ A cJ W a ¢ N ¢ ~ th d ¢ ~ m ¢ ~ = v, ~ y c ~O ~ c [~ ~p . F V W N o a ¢ ~ ¢ H y ¢ z ~ ap W aa W a~ W aa W~ a W~ a w ¢ ~ ¢_ ~ ¢ g ¢_ ¢ _ E ¢ ~°' O Z ~ ~ Z' ' ta Z o Z ~ u z ` ° w Zti F _ .. _~ .-. . .. ... ... ¢ > ~ V ~~ ~Z ~~ n ~ ~[n 4 L] L ..a A c. a a a f a a a O O Table WH-2 Vehicle Trip Generation Rata Winchester Hills Specific Plan Location Land Use Unit Daily Trip Rate Sub-area Planning Area Single Family Residential D.U. 10.0 A 2,3,4,5,9,12,13 Multi Family Residential D.U. 6.6 A 1,4 Mobile Home Park D.U. SS A 14 Elementary Scbool Acres 40.0 A 11 Neighborhood Park Acres 40.0 A 6,10 Business Park Acres 130.0 B 15,16 Commercial Office KSFFA 11.1 B 7 Neighborhood Commercial Center I{SFFA 62.0 C 8 Based on 1'IE Trip Generatio0. Founh Fditioa D.U. Dwellin6 Unit KSFFA -Thousand square feet of Moor area. O O O O O O ' ~ o n ~ ... o ~ ., eh „~ ~ a cn .-. r ~ ., ~ ... c .-. o F o Z a ~ N n e .-+ eh r. ~o n -. u p e en en ~o e ~ e~ < c G 0. n. .~ _ ~ a o°`o ~ a a °n° a o°`o F U > ~ F °° °' c .. n .. °~° .~ ~ .~ ~ ° °° n o - u x ..~ ~ p., Q ~ 0. ~ p a ~ ~o 00 c 00 ~ ,~ n a n a ~ oo c ,.., n a p ~ ¢ r .0. .~-~ ~ M N ~ .~-~ e~+l N ~ a o u N1 . L ~` ~ ~ N H ~ ~ n e '.O~r v ~ y '~ Q n ..n v 'f v~ .. vi .r O O vs N ~ n .ti v '1 n .-i v 1 v~ .-ti b a ..n ~ n .-i 3 V W = C ~ ~ ~ ~ ca o ca ci ci d ci A ci F d s u v C ~ N h ~ rr vii ...i vNi .~ v00i N ~ ..w n .--i ~ N a N °-° t7 ~ A, • 7 ti ~ ~ e'1 N M 00 .-~ E" N e~f cif . - N ~ R ~ < N 0. N H1 v1 O~ ti ~~„~ ..' ~ ~ m ~ to A ~ . ~ ~% ~ o ~ E" u ~ ~ ~ a - ~ tr. C :p N u CG a, E ti x '- c. E o x ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q u 7 C C O 3 u • 7 ~ Eo N Q ~D N N < O~ of V~ n P7 N 00 ti pNp O x N ~ ~ ~ N O~ vni ~ ~p C ~ Q a . O N 00 ~.~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ •~ E" .r .~. N ~ O V O .. 7 A O ~ n ~ ~ ti of N l~ N N ~ e O ~ ~ 0 U w i y r4 •^ ~` ~ V O ~ ~O N ~D ~ ~p 0~0 N ~ N a .-: a c ~ n N 00 h en a a o ~ ~ 0. e+f = o V] C y L u L V ~ ~•` •t0 A 00 < < 00 O N ~ R n 00 Q ~ ~O N O~ t'1 ~ N Q O •--~ C ~O ~ 3 d ~° F ~ V • ~' = ~ °' .. a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ c~~.. vi X w vi x V N F ~ u u ~ v C '~ N [n N ~•r N ~ ~ ~ b ~ h ~ O N O ^ N a N ~ V v C . . . . . . - O E, N M N N N ' V ~ a .. ~ ° ~ :° ~ 00 m °~' ~, •v e~ ~ ~ o a, _ ~ o ` ~ v ~. E O V :9 Lo a ~ o -~ ~ o a, ~, o ~ m o te H ~ co C E ~ ~ o ~' ~ ~ •w ~ 6 ~ D 0 ° W Z ~ U Z O O O 0 fable TRC-2 Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Regional Mall Alternative Temecula Regional Center O O r ~DAII.Y LOCATION OF LAND USE SIZE° UNIT > TRIP RATE' LAND USE RETAII : . Regional Mall 1,125 ksf ~ 320 -: Sub-Area 2 Adjacent to Mall 320. °° Sub-Area 2 Within Core Area 35.0 °d Sub-Area la & lb Frin¢e Area ,: ___.40:0..._.''.°. > Sub-Area 3 OFFICE: .._ _ ,<„:,. _.,.,..>: Small 40 ksf 24 4 Sub-Area 3 b 350 ksf : 1D 0 Sub-Area la Large 420 ksf 9.6 Sub-Area lb HOTEL room 87' Sub-Area la Sours ITE Trip Gmmtion, F'ourtb Edition e¢pt abe+e owed • - Sirs ootei only a~hee a've is used to duamine trip et< Floor am value are based on arrest appr®mations. • • - Fitimatod based oa pr®mity to Recioml MaLL kst - Thousand Square Feel (Gras Irasabk F1wr Are) 0 M ~~ rw=G' W cC ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c U o ~- ...• ~ cC ~ ~ C. wir Q . ~ W I"'~ ~N ~~ .~ ~ L.1 ~ _O Q) W •~ U ~ ~ g _o' p C Y L Y ' w C V o B o u > p 9 3 V a= S~ •Yec L p o~ 3 p 0 O ~ < C ~ Y 8 CL O u V ~~ ~ ~ e a e 6~h Y. a L w v `y~, E 6 {L m C 6 Y ~ g w ~ •E '~ 'c N ~~p ~ p O O C C L O Y ~3~~~ V J7 • Z O O O A~~~~~~ ~ 6tR/SAR1 Y~6t 2090 SOC10-EC0~101~IC ®AYA cow~ur col; ~ ~Ews~low~ ~~+ t~TAd Td01L IOfAL e TAZ D.U.S DL.S ~YKENf B,EM ~.~SD?I (iPb78B) 434 3979 1218 280 2420 13381 9729 436 2843 872 145 985 9563 9729 437 1155 354 286 873 3885 9729 439 3463 1061 448 4421 11644 9729 440 1993 619 B 421 6713 9729 441 2295 704- 1512 2970 7720 9729 446 4308 1321 455 6476 14491 9729 447 5340 1635 680 4154 17956 9729 O O FocusEn r~o®a veaR ao9o socio-ecowo~aic Dare x~our ~~aecr MEDINi _ 91RGLE FAAG.M lCA7F~FAA~tlLY RETNL ZOiAL 70fAL deCOalE TA2 DSl.S D.U.ffi EA9lIIMfM EA~IIIiKfM POP1ARtOT) (78878'3) 205 861 270 15 79 2965 9729 207 57 17 15 99 191 9729 209 85 26 7 49 287 9729 210 85 26 7 49 287 9729 211 0 0 22 20 0 9729 229 399 124 0 21 1343 9729 233 0 0 17 194 0 9729 234 597 183 43 169 2007 9729 235 35 11 9 111 116 9729 336 86 26 91 971 290 9729 337 0 0 91 324 0 9729 336 0 0 159 583 0 9729 339 0 0 68 324 0 9729 341 0 0 46 466 0 9729 349 0 0 99 265 0 9729 350 485 149 90 221 1630 9729 429 307 95 2 84 1034 9729 430 0 0 170 415 0 9729 431 641 196 102 415 2156 9729 432 1143 350 18 86 3843 9729 433 848 260 0 44 2853 9729 434 645 197 70 678 2168 9729 435 745 228' 383 2867 2503 9729 436 426 131 7 49 1435 9729 437 866 266 200 611. 2914 O 9729 438 0 0 31 177 0 9729 439 242 74 90 442 615 9729 440 120 37 0 21 403 9729 441 344 106 184 1040 1158 9729 442 0 0 40 177 0 9729 443 0 0 40 177 0 9729 444 52 16 27 44 175 9729 445 294 90 31 44 990 9729 446 1292 396 66 324 4347 9729 447 5324 1630 408 3323 17911 9729 478 227 70 29 79 765 9729 479 242 74 67 177 815 9729 480 16 5 2 84 54 9729 481 20 6 1 63 67 9729 482 142 44 22 197 478 9729 483 30 9 1 63 101 9729 484 398 122 22 25 1339 9729 485 114 35 7 39 383 9729 486 115 35 151 386 386 9729 467 964 296 45 149 3242 9729 488 872 268 30 297 2934 9729 489 568 174 22 66 1910 9729 490 775 238 137 971 2608 9729 620 0 0 23 971 0 9729 621 0 0 70 971 0 9729 622 0 0 70 971 0 9729 623 289 89 86 262 971 9729 624 1830 560 126 460 6155 9729 625 358 110 70 242 1204 9729 626 0 0 70 128 0 9729 627 0 0 17 218 0 9729 628 0 0 17 218 0 O 9729 629 80 24 0 0 268 9729 630 239 73 17 109 803 9729 706 597 183 17 85 2007 9729 707 398 122 17 121 1338 9729 708 1102 342 2 84 3712 9729 O FOCUSED (~JODEL ,rs~ 2090 SOC1O-ECOP1DG71C D~.TA ~0 PiiOJECY a~ o~ aeow, y~ 8'xfilE 6A!!IIY RlL9 NJIO!-FAf~ ALL8 Y IET/~C ~IOYNENf 707M 6t?lOYl~DIf 704LL OOCQME C-0m(LL/QtOM (/E87 SS) 205 861 270 15 79 2965 9729 207 57 17 15 99 191 9729 209 85 26 7 49 287 9729 210 85 26 7 49 287 9729 211 0 0 22 20 0 9729 229 399 124 0 21 1343 9729 233 0 0 17 194 0 9729 234 597 183 43 169 2007 9729 235 35 11 9 111 116 9729 336 86 26 91 971 290 9729 337 0 0 91 324 0 9729 338 0 0 159 583 0 9729 339 0 0 68 324 0 9729 341 0 0 46 466 0 9729 349 0 0 99 265 0 9729 350 485 249 90 221 1630 9729 429 307 95 2 84 1034 9729 430 0 0 170 415 0 9729 431 641 196 102 415 2156 9729 432 1143 350 18 88 3843 9729 433 fl48 260 0 44 2853 9729 434 645 197 70 678 2168 9729 435 745 228 383 2867 2503 9729 436 426 131 7 49 1435 9729 O 437 866 266 200 611 2914 9729 438 0 0 728 3533 0 9729 439 242 74 90 442 815 9729 440 120 37 0 21 403 9729 441 344 106 184 1040 1158 9729 442 0 0 1202 1358 0 9729 443 0 0 1127 1127 0 9729 444 206 644 311 1122 2189 9729 445 294 90 31 44 990 9729 446 1292 396 68 324 4347 9729 447 5324 1630 408 3323 17911 9729 478 227 70 29 79 765 9729 479 242 74 67 177 815 9729 480 16 5 2 64 54 9729 481 20 6 1 63 67 9729 482 142 44 22 197 478 9729 483 30 9 1 63 101 9729 484 398 122 22 25 1339 9729 485 114 35 7 39 383 9729 486 115 35 151 386 386 9729 487 964 296 45 149 3242 9729 488 872 268 30 297 2934 9729 489 568 174 22 66 1910 9729 490 775 238 137 971 2608 9729 620 0 0 23 971 0 9729 621 0 0 70 971 0 9729 622 0 0 70 971 0 9729 623 289 89 86 262 971 9729 624 1830 560 126 460 6155 9729 625 358 110 70 242 1204 9729 626 0 0 70 128 0 9729 627 0 0 0 1128 0 9729 O 628 0 0 0 794 0 9729 629 493 0 0 0 1269 9729 630 923 532 359 1362 3746 9729 706 597 183 17 85 2007 9729 707 398 122 17 121 1338 9729 708 1102 342 2 64 3712 9729 0 0 RI VSAN 2030 POCU6E0 aRE• METMOR~a CMP gNALY526 FOR TEMECULA VRBAN CDRE PROJECTS O 020ECB2 19. SB. d2 O O ORIGINAL RI VSAN 20f0 NETNORK CMP ANALYSIS POR TEMECULA URBAN CORE PROJECTS O 03DEC82 DB: JB: dB 0 O O O ~~ geetersecteoa .~nalys6s WorZtsheets I'car 2010 ®Yithont Project O O MQ(: SI WIAL IZED INTERSC{TIOA SllnMRT O Center For dicrocaeputers In Tronsportatian IIE66YYYY°i°°°°II°°°IIYOYO°II°II°°IIIIQIIOOOII°°6°CCp°°p Streets: (E•d> dINCNESTER RD (d-S) I-15 SB RApPS Analyst: ERIC ddDERll00D file dc:e: 5106ApeO.NC9 Ares Type: Other 10-28-92 Ap PEAK ~•~• ~ Cm~sent: CAP/RIySAd 2010 FlI TMOUT PROJECT; BODE S1Q6 oaeavIIIIIIQ°QII° Eastbound ~ Watboiald ~ derthssma,d ~ aodths:o,a,d l T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ l T R I_.._ .__.....I.... .__• ___•~_•_• ____ __••~_-__ __-_ •__• do. Lean ~ 2 1 ~ 2 ~ ~ 1 2 Volumes ~ bx 123 689 ~ ~ 32 182 Lone didth ~ 12.0 12.0 12.0 ~ X12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ ~ 0 Siprol Oparotiona~ Phase combination 1 2 3 4 ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Lett ~dB Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peds ° ~ pads ° F1B left ° ~SB Left ° Thal ° ~ Thrv Right ~ Right ° Peds ° ~ Pads ° NB Right DEB Right SB Right ° ~~ p;pht Green 8A 33A ~Oromf 27A Yelled/A-R G < ~7ellod/A-R 6 O Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Moat Tie 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 secs Phase combiration ordar: O1 02 g Intersection Perfotmnee Sumamry Lane Group: Adj Sat v/C p/e Approach; dvmts Cap Flog Rot io Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB T 3566 1515 0.32 0.43 9.9 B 9.8 B R 1515 6G4 0.20 0.43 9.4 B F!B T 3564 1515 0.50 0.43 11.1 B 11.1 B SB t 1515 53D 0.06 0.35 13.1 B 8.7 B R 3029 1<01 0.1< 0.46 8.0 B I ntersectian Deloy ' 10.2 (see/voh) IMeraoetion LOS = B O NCI: SI WIALi2ED ldTERSECT10s SLC81ARy Center For Bicrxovputers In iransportat~on vavvaaaavvanvavaaavaavaavvvvaaasvaaaaa aavavvvvaaaavmsaasaavwv®v avava Streets: (E-tl) FIIBCXESTER RD (d-S) 1-15 SB RABPS Anolyst: ERIC LRN)ERMJOD file dcme: 5106Pdu0.NC9 I.D 1 Arco type: Other 10-78.92 PB PEAK - Oom~nt: CIP/RIVBAd 2010 FIITNOUT PROJECT; BODE 5106 aavavmvvvavvvvvvvvmaammavaa vnaeomvvoovvvmvvaoneoanvw vmw Eostbound ~ Hesttsmld ~ dorthbound ~ Southbound L T R ~ L T ____ _ . _ __ R ~ L T R ~ L T __.. __._ __.. _ __ ___. __. R _ . Z i do. Lanes i____ _Z ..; i i i Z Volumes ~ 608 327 663 ~ ~ 100 600 Lane Nidth ~ 12.0 12.0 12.0 ~ X12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ ~ 0 S i gro l Oparat i one Phose eambinot ion 1 2~ 3 L ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Left ~B8 Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Pea: ° ~ Pads ° HB left ° ~SB Latt ° Thru ° ~ TAru Right ~ Right ° Peds ° ~ Peds ° d8 Right ~E6 Right SB Right ° ~tlB. Right Green 25A 26A ~Graen 27A Tellw/A•R L L ~TOllou/A-R L Lost time 3.0 3.0 ~Loat Tis:e 3.0 Cyt le Length: 90 sees Phose cosbinat ion order: O1 02 OS Intersection Perforvmxe Susnmry Lane Group: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approoeh: Nvmts Cap Flw Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB T 3564 1069 0.63 0.30 18.3 C 19.7 C R 1515 L35 0.76 0.30 22.6 C YB T 3564 1069 0.69 0.30 19.0 C 19.0 C 'S8 l 1515 L71 0.22 0.31 17.5 C 7.6 B R 3029 1817 0.37 0.60 6.0 B Intersection Deloy n 15.8 (see/veh) Intersection LOS a C O O O xtn: slcdALtzEO IdrERSEaIO~ w~nar O Center For pieraeavputert In Trontportation veavasvvvvvavv v~II4~ Streetc: (E-FI) HIRCXESTER RD (d-B> 1-15 d6 RAdPS Analyst: ERIC WDERF100D File dc~: 5109Atw"O.NC9 '.D. ,Z Area Type: Other 10'28-92 Ad PEAK . Comment: 61P/RIVBAX 2010 HITNOIIT PROJECT; BODE 5109 Eotttm~md ~ tlest6atoid ~ dorth6owid ~ Sauthhound L T R ~ l T R ~ l T R ~ L T R do. Lanes ~ 1 2 ~ 2 1 ~ 1 2 ~ Volsmes ~ 271 218 ( 918 172 98 273 Lanc u;eth ~1z.o 1z.o ~ u.o 1z.o~lz.o u.o~ RTOR Volt ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ Bigrol Oparotiont Phose combination 1 2 3 < ~ 5 6 7 B EB Lett ° ~dB Laft ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru Right ~ Right ° Pedt ~ Palo YB Left ~SB Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peels ~ Pads RB Right ~EB Right 56 Right ~HB Right Green 15A 28A Green 1511 O Tellov/A-R 4 < ~yolloa/A-R 4 Lost Tian 3.0 3.0 ~Laat Tict 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sees Phoae eoffiirotian ordar. II1 02 L5 Interoeet ion Perforscarxe Sun~ry Lane Grose: Adj Sot v/e g/c apDroaeh: gvmts Cap floe Rotio Rotio Deloy LOS Deloy LOS EB L 1693 387 0.74 .0.23 24.0 C 14.1 B T 3566 2444 0.10 0.69 2.4 A YB T 3566 1477 0.69 0.<1 11.6 B 11.2 B R 1515 628 0.29 0.61 8.9 B RB L 1515 346 0.30 0.23 17.1 C 16.0 C R 2673 611 0.<9 0.23 15.6 C Intersection Deloy = 12.8 (oee/wh) IMeraectian LOS a B O XCd: SIGRAL I2ED IdTERSECTIOR SIl.~. ART Center For dieroconputera in Trarmportation aassaaaaa-_aaasasaeasasaasaaaaasasaaaa saaaaaaaaaaaassaaar saaaa°°asaa Streets: (E-U) HiRCNESTER RD (d-S) 1.15 dB RApPg Arolyct: ERIC UNDERHOm File dr~¢e: 5109Pd)A. NC9 I.~.'2 Aree Type: Other 10-28-92 Pd PEAK Comment: CpP/RIVSAR 2010 HITXOUT PROJECT; d~E 5109 aaasaasaasaavaaaaaava I Eestfm~aM I Nestfmia+d I dorthfm~ad I Sotrthbo~aid I l T R I L T .. "'_ . R I L T R I L l.. .__ .... . .. T R ....._ _... z ; i do. Lanes i';'_ .Z .. Z i il; Volumes ~ 199 499 I 686 BBI 223 5421 Lonr Hidth 112.0 12.0 I 12.0 1 2.OI12.0 12.OI RTOR Vols I OI OI OI Signal Operations Phase con6i rot ion 1 2 3 4 I S 6 7 8 EB Lett ° IRB Lgft e Thru ° ° I Thnu Right I R(B'ht ° Peels I Peels HB Left ISB Lett Thru ° I Thru Right ° I Right Pods I Peels RB Right IEB Right BB Right IH8 Right Green 10A 20A IGreen 28A Tallow/A-R G G ITelloa/A-R 4 ~ ' Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILoat Tien 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase eoebirotion order: 01 OZ G3 l ntersection Perforncrxe Simanry Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c B/c Approach: dvmts Cap slow Rotio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 266 0.79 0.16 31.3 D 13.5 8 T 3564 1782 0.31 0.50 6.7 B (A1 T 3564 1069 0.71 0.30 15.< C 15.0 B R 1575 455 0.20 0.30 11.8 B qB L 1515 628 0.37 0.<1 11.0 B 10.5 B R 2673 1107 0.5< ~ O.i1 10.< B Intersection Delay = 13.0 (see/veh) Intersection LOS = B O 0 O NO1: SIORAL IZED IBTERSEtt 10`A BART Center F or piereeoeputers !n Trarsportotion O 6ii°S1 ii°ii°°°iiY°°Qa° iii°°i°GY°O°°°D O°GC°i00°6°666°~°O°IIL°~YY~ Q°Yi Streets: (E•H) HIRCNESTER RD (d-S) TRE2 RD Analyst: ERIC IRN)ERUOOD File dtme: 3727A)(HD.NO9 I D 3 Area Type: Other 1048-92 Ap PEA[ . . Consent: CNP/RI VSAR 2010 HITMOl1T PROJEtt; BODE 3727 iiicismi Eostbamd ~ HestEwaM ~ dorthbosad I SouthOound L T R 1 L T .._ .... __.. R 1 L T R 1 L T _._. _.....__ ----I---- ~___ R _~_. ~____ _... qo. Lones ~ i 3 1 _ 1 1 1 3 ' 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 Voluses ~ 61 300 1311 255 650 661 319 199 1811 37 242 121 Lone Hidth 171.0 11.0 12.0112.0 12.0 10.0111.0 12.0 12.0111.0 11.0 11.0 RiOR 9ols 1 01 01 01 0 Signal Oparati mes Phase eaabinet ion 1 2 3 < 1 5 6 7 8 ER Left ° ide left ° Thru ° 1 They ° Right ° 1 Right ° Peck ° 1 Pads ° l)B Lett ° 158 Left ° Thru ° I Thru ° Right ° 1 ~ Right ° beds ° ~ Palo °. RB Right ° IE8 Right ° 55 Right ° 1H8 Right Green 37A 17A 15reen 16A 16A Tellov/A•R G G 1Tellon/A-R 6 6 lost time 3.0 O 3.0 1LOSt Tice 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sees Phoae eombi retion order: O1 O2 tr3 Ob I nteraeation Performnce pummry Lane Group: Adj pat v/e p/c Approach: Nvmts Cap Flov Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Deloy l05 EB L 1642 62G 0.10 0.38 15.2 C 20.6 C T 5186 953 0.37 0.18 23.4 C R 1515 500 0.28 0.33 16.0 C N L 1693 643 O.G2 0.38 17.6 C 25.0 C T 5346 962 0.78 0.18 27.8 D R 1409 254 0.19 0.18 22.5 C NB L 3181 <77 0.7< 0.15 35.0 D 2<.9 C 7 3561 606 0.36 0.17 23.9 C R 1515 833 0.23 0.55 7.5 B SB L 1642 2G6 0.16 0.15 28.1 D 19.7 C T 3<57 588 0.66 0.17 2G.5 C R 1669 808 0.16 0.55 7.2 B Intersection Delay i 23.3 (ace/veh) Inteneet ion lOS i C O MCM: SIGNALIZED IdTERSECT IOd SIFdART O Center For picroepsgiuters In Tronsportat ion maavasnaavavanvvsanasa°vsvvsvvsavaaeaaasasevvvaaaasvmanaaaamavwaavs Streets: (E-w) wINCXESTER RD Cd-S) YNEZ RD Analyst: ERIC l1NDERw00D file deae: 3727PtR)O.NC9 I.D. 3 Are6 type: Other ~ 10-28-92 Pd PEAK Cevmtnt: CqP/RIVSAd 2010 wITNOUT PROJECT; NODE 3727 - veavaameasva I Eosttsxaid 1 westbound I derthbmsid I southlmtmd I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- •--- ---- do. lerus 1 1 3 1 11 3 1 1 2 2 1 11 2 1 volumxs 1 150 696 1971 33G 459 591 183 401 2781 61 291 132 Lone width 111.0 11.0 12.0112.0 12.0 10.0111.0 12.0 12.0111.0 11.0 11.0 RTOR vole I 01 01 01 0 Si Bro l Operat i oro Phase eon>birotion 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB left ° ~ Ide Left ° Thru ° 1 Thru ° Right ° I Right ° Peels ° 1 Peels ° w8 Left ° 158 Left ° Thru ° I Thru ° Right ~O 1 Right ° Pedt ° I Peels ° dB Right ° IEB Right ° . 58 Right IF,a Right Green 25A 34A (Green 10A 15A TelladA-R 4 G (Yellow/A-R < < O Lost Tise: 3.0 3.0 Iloct Timx 3.0 3.0 ' Cyele Length: 100 secs Phase cmt~i rotian order: U1 g2 L3 d6 Intersection Perforennee Summry ' Lane Group: Adj Sot v/e B/e Approoeh: pvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Deloy LOS EB L 1662 427 0.37 0.26 23.3 C 16.3 C T 5186 1815 O.GG 0.35 16.3 C R 1515 697 0.30 0.46 11.0 B wB L 1693 GGO 0.80 0.26 33.2 D 21.8 C T 5346 1871 0.28 0.35 15.2 C R 1409 493 0.13 0.35 16.3 B NB L ~ 3181 350 0.58 0.11 33.9 D 25.B D T 3564 570 0.78 0.16 30.0 D R 1515 636 0.46 0.42 13.8 B SB L 1642 181 0.35 0.11 31.8 D 23.1 .C T 3457 553 0.58 0.16 26.1 D R 1469 617 0.23 0.42 12.0 B Intersection Deloy a 21.2 faee/veh) Intoraect ion LOS = C O XO1: SIGMAlI2ED IRTERSECTIO:I SlC.:1ART O Center For dieroeomputero In Trdnsportotion asssaasasaaeesaaaaavaa Streets: lE-H1 FIIRCNESTER RD ld-S> REGJOSAL ttR. DRIVE Aro lyss: qA5 Ftle dcs: 1397Ad1ID.RW Arse Type: Other 11-11-92 Ap PEAK ~•~• Comment: CpP/RVBAR 2010 UJTIRIdT PROJECT; d®E 1397 Eoot6oia+d ~ lwatEma~d ~ donh6osmd ~ Bouthbamd L T R ~ l T R ~ L T R ( L T R 80. Larros ~~ 3 1 ~ 1 3 ~ 1 1 volunzs ~ 479 38~ 18 939 ~ 12 b~ Lorx u;dtn ~ 1z.D 1D.o~u.o tz.o ~u.o u.o~ RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ Signol Oparotions O Phase eombi~wtion 1 2 3 b ~ S 6 7 8 EB Left ~dB Lett ° Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ R;ght ° Petit ~ Pads FR left ° ~BB Loft Thru ° ~ Thev sight ~ sight Peck ~ Pads RB Right ~EB Right SB Right ~~ Right Green SOA ~Graan 22A Tellau/A-R 6 ~Telloy/A-R 6 Lost Time 3.0 ~LOat Tica 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 seta Phose em~irntion order: 01 G5 I nteroeet ion Perforcmee S~sa®ry lane Graup: AdJ Bat v/c 9/e ~ Approoah: gvmts Cap Floa Ratio Rotio Delay LOS Delay LOB EB 7 5346 X08 0.16 0.64 3.8 A 3.8 A R 1409 898 0.04 0.64 3.5 A FIB L 933 595 0.03 0.64 <.1 A 6.3 A T 5X6 X08 0.32 0.6G <.3 A RB L 1515 <36 0.03 0.29 15.6 C 15.0 B R 1515 636 0.01 0.29 13.2 B I nteraeet ian Delay ° 4.2 (a¢c/vaA> interoect ion LOS = A O XCR: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION $IF:IART O Center For Rierototlputers In Transportot ion massaasvaavnvmvvvanaaaamvsvaaasvvaa mrmnnvaannvvvnvaaaavvanamaaassa Streets: tE-N) HINCNESTER RD (R•5) REGIONAL CTR. DRIVE Analyst: qAg File gtme: 1397PNU0.NC9 I D 4 Arco Type: Other • • 11'17'92 PR PEAK Consent: CLIP/RVSAN 2010 FIITMOUT PROJECT; RODE 1397 vmvnvaavvavvvvnavvvmasevanvaanvvemvvvnmevnnavvnvvannanvmvvmmvvvv Eostboraui ~ Uestbourd ~ gorthbound ~ Sauthbmard L T R ~ L T .._ __.. _ R ~ L T R ~ L T R ._. I......__ _...I__.. ____ .... I_... ._.. ._..I. Ro. Larces ~ 3 1 ~ 1 3 ~ 1 1 volumes ~ 7010 26~ 12 814 ~ 39 16~ Lori Nidth ~ 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 X12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ DI DI 0~ Sigrui Operotiona Phase combination 1 2 3 < ~ 5 6 7 8 EB left ~NB Left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ~. Right ° ~ R1Bht ° Peds ~ Peds HB Lett ° ~58 Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ~ Right Peds ~ Peds RB Right ~EB Right SB Right ~HB Right Green 5<A ~Greetr 18A Tellou/A-R < ~Tellau/A-R < O lost Time 3.0 Lost Tisx 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 secs Phase eombi ration order: ltl CS Intersection Performmee Summary Lane Groff: Adl Sot v/e 9/e Approach: punts Cap Flou Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB T 5346 3675 0.32 0.69 3.2 A 3.2 A R 7409 969 0.03 0.69 2.6 A HB L 401 276 0.05 0.69 3.7 A 3.1 A T 5346 3675 0.26 0.69 3.1 A qB L 1515 360 0.11 0.24 18.2 C 17.3 C R 1515 360 0.05 0.24 15.2 C Intersection Delay v 3.5 Lase/veh) Intersection LOS = A O NCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLC3IART Center For dieroeovputerv In irornportation O vvsavamvavasm vvmagvm Streets: (E-d) HINCXESTER RD (N-S) REGIONAL CENTER RD Analyst: ERIC uNDERilOID File drse: 1988Na10.NC9 D. 5 I Area iype: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK . [Dement: CNp/RIVSAN 2010 FIITNWT pROJEtt; BODE 1988 66a666aa®aaaaa0 Eost6mmd ~ Hastfmwd ~ dorthbo~aid ~ BDUth6ole>d L T R ~ L T _ •__. • R ~ L T R ~ l T _...._._ .... ~___.._.. _ ____ R ._. No. Le'us I_.__ ._...._•~ _ _ ~ 1 3 1 ~/ 3 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 < Volwxs ~ GO 439 6~ 2 962 18~ 2 2 2~ 7 2 15 Lene Nidth 12.0 12.0 1D.0~12.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 12.012.0 72.0 R70R Vola ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0 Sigrnl Oparotimis phase combination 1 2 3 b ~ S 6 7 B EB Left ° ~dB Lett ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° pads ° ~ pcds ° F1B Left ° ~SB Laft ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° pads ° ~ padf ° ' dB ~RiBht ° ~EB Right ° SB Right ~H8 Right Green 17A 30A ~Oraen SA Z2A O Yellow/A-R Lost Time G G 3.0 3.0 ~YOlloa/A-R b b ~LOSt Tiee 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 90 sect phaae combination order: C1 02 l75 06 Interaeetion perfort~nce Sumimry Lane Group: Ad)' Sot v/e B/c 0.pprooeh:~ Nvmss Lap floe Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Deloy 105 EB L 1643 339 0.12. 0.20 Z2.5 C 14.5 B T 5346 1861 0.28 0.34 13.8 B R 1609 579 0.01 0.41 10.1 B YB L 1693 339 0.01 0.20 21.9 C 16.0 C T 5366 1861 0.59 0.36 16.0 C R 1609 685 O.OG 0.34 12.7 B NB l 1693 113 0.02 0.07 29.8 D 78.2 C T 1782 655 0.00 0.26 16.1 C R 1515 690 0.00 0.66 8.6 B 58 l 1693 113 O.Qb 0.07 29.9 D 20.1 C TR 1544 395 0.05 0.26 16.3 C Intersection Delay a 15.5 <ox/veh) ~ Int¢raect ion LOS a C O XCX: SIGdAL IZED IRTERSEtt 1011 SIFD(ART Center For dicroswputers In Trwsportation O vvwavvvasaavvvwvcvavvvvvvvvvvvvvavv°vvv®vq®vaavvv°avvvvvavv®vvwm Streets: (E-Fl) HIdCXESTER RD (d•S) REG1011A1 CEdTER RD Anolyst: ERIC URDERFl00D File dcsre: 1988PpN0.XC9 I.~. 5 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 Pp PEAK Comment: CXP/RIVSAX 2010 HITNOUT PROJEtt; BODE 1988 avvvea.aammvaavvvvamvm v°°® I East[rowd 1 ~ 1)asttmimd 1 dorthbo~md I Southbo~md I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R ____ ..__ _._.1..__ __....__ . _.._ 1 I._._ _.._ ._._I.___ .._ do. Lanes 1 1 3~ 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1< voluaxs ~ 62 981 31 2 771 191 2 2 21 35 9 SG Lane (lidth 112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 0 Signal OperaLiOna Phase combination 1 2 3 6 1 S 6 7 8 EB Left ° 1d8 Left ° Thru ° 1 Thru ° Right ° 1 Right ° Pads I Peas ° lAl Left ° 15B Left ° TAru ° I Thru ° Right ° 1 Right ° Pads ° I Pella ° dB Right ° 1E8 Right ° SB Right 1kID R(Bnt Greco 6A 30A 1Graen 10A 2811 yellow/A-R < 6 1Tellaa/A-R b b O Lost Time 3.0 3.0 1Lost Tie~e 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 90 sees Phase combination order. 01 02 OS 06 Intersection Performance S~amnry Lane Group: Adl Sot v/e B/c Approach: Xvmts Cep Floe Ratio Rotio Delay LOS Deloy LOS EB L 1693 132 0.33 0.08 30.6 D 16.8 C T 5366 1861 0.62 0.36 16.3 C R 1609 658 0.00 0.<7 8.3 B HB L 1693 132 0.02 0.08 29.1 D 15.1 C T 5366 1861 O.iB 0.36 15.1 C R 1609 685 0.06 0.36 12.7 B ' XB L 1643 207 0.01 0.12 26.6 D 16.7 c T 1782 576 0.00 0.32 13.< B R 1515 606 0.00 0.60 10.5 B SB L 1643 207 0.18 0.12 27.0 D 18.6 C TR 1552 500 0.13 0.32 16.0 B Intersection Delay = 16.2 (see/veh) lnteraection LOS = C O NCN: SI(iNAL[ZED ldTERSSCTION SIF.^.(ART ' Center for gicrocosputers In iroruportot ion O vvvsasvvnvvsvnammwnvneovanmvvaaaanvvnmvamu Streets: (E -q) HINCNESTER RD (q-S) 7(ARGAR ITA RD Anelytt: ER IC WDERFR7DD File dcx: 21S<ai~0.XC9 '.D- 6 Area type: Dther 10-28-92 AN PEA[ Comment; CHP/RIVSAR 2070 HITNOUT PROJECT; tlODE 2156 v Eestbotmd ~ kiaatbowd ~ tlorthbow+d ~ Southho~ ald L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R qo. Lanes ~ 1 3 7 ~ 1 3 7 ~ 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 Vol~anas ~ 173 858 25~ 132 762 33~ 1< 67 109 26 61 59 Lone Vidth ~~12.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 70.012.0 72.0 8.012.0 12.0 8.0 RTOR Volc ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ O Signal Oparatiore Phase coobi retion 1 2 3 < ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Left ° Iqg Lg}t n Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° Peck ° ~ Pock ° FR left ° TSB left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° Peds ° ~ Pack ° NB Right ° ~EB Right ° SB Right ° ~iA Ri gflt Green 11A 29A ~Graen 16A 28A iellou/A-R < < ~Telloa/A-R < < Lost Tiara O 3.0 3.0 ~los; T,icx 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sees Phase co~irvit ion order: 01 (R g C6 Interoeetion Perforearxe Swtaary Lane Group: Ad)' Sat v/c g/e Approo eh: Nvmtc Cop Flou Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Daloy LOS EB L 1693 203 0.59 0.12 3G.8 .D 21.2 C T 5346 1604 0.62 0.30 19.9 C R 1409 662 O.OG 0.47 9.2 8 uB L 7693 203 -0.68 0.12 38.2 D 21.6 C T 5366 1604 0.55 '0.30 19.2 C R 7409 423 0.08 0.30 16.2 C NB L 1645 288 0.05 0.17 26.4 D 14.6 B i 3564 1D3< O.OG 0.29 76.5 C R 1318 540 0.21 0.41 12.3 B 58 L 1693 288 0.09 0.17 26.6 D 76.4 C 7 3564 1036 O.OG 0.29 16.5 C R 7318 S<0 0.71 O.<i 11.8 B Intersection Delay n 20.7 (see/veh) . Interaeetien LOS v C O NCi1: SIOdALIZED IdTERSECT10d AF'IART Lenter for dierocoeputers In Tronsportotion O mvmasavvanvvvvvvmvmmvvmvmamvmvammavvmamvmvvmvaaavamvmv streetc: (E-Fl) HIRCRESTER RD Td-S) dAROARITA RO Aro lyst: ERIC UdDERklDOD File dcx: 215GPgdO.XN '.D. s Ares Type: Other 10-28-92 Pp PEAK Comment: CIW/RIVSAd 2010 FIITBOIJT PROJECT; BODE 2156 vaaaasmvmvmvm®aammwaamvavevvmmvvvmmvvvva®vavvmavvvvevvm Eastbo~aui ~ llestboiad ~ dorthbow+d ~ SouthEoiaui L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R I.... __.. _...I____ ........I_._.........I..__ _.__ ..._ do. Longs ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 volumes ~ sG Got 12~ 136 791 27~ is 1s 86~ 29 37 111 Lorce Hidth X12.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 8.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0 Sigrol Operoti ons Phose coaobirotion 1 2 3 G ~ s 6 7 B EB Lett ° ~ ~d8 Left ° Thru ° ~ ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° Pella ° ~ Pads ° NB Left ° ~SB Loft ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° Peels ° ~ pads ° qB Right ° ~EB Right ° SB Right ° FHB Right Green 12A 29A ~Orean 15A ZBA Tellou/A-R G G ~Telloa/A-R G < O Lost Tier ~ 3.0 3.0Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 seu Phose eoebi ration order: O1 02 g O6 Intersection Performerxe Suemery Lo'x Group: Adl Sot v/c g/c ApprooM: pvlets Cap Flod Rotlo Rotio Doloy LOS Delay LOS Es L 1693 220 0.26 0.13 29.9 D 18.5 C T 5346 1606 0.29 0.30 17.< C R 1409 648 0.02 O.G6 9.5 B ue L 1693 220 0.6s 0.13 35.9 D 21.5 C T s3G6 1604 0.57 0.30 19.< C R 1<09 <23 0.07 0.30 16.1 C d8 L 1693 271 0.06 0.16 27.1 D 14.3 B T 3566 1034 0.02 0.29 16.4 C R 1318 554 0.16 0.<2 11.7 0 se L 1693 271 0.11 0.16 27.3 D 15.5 C T 3566 1036 O.OG 0.29 16.s C R 1318 a5G 0.21 O.G2 11.9 B I nterseetion Delay = 19.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS v C O XCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLgdART Center For pierocamputers In Tronsportation °~~~~~ Streets: (E-Fl) tlICOLAS RD (N-S) dIdCNESTER RD Analyst: ERIC WIDERNOOD File Ncx: 3726AtslO.MC9 '.D• 7 Arco Type: Other 10-28-92 Ap PEAK Cmoeent: CpV/RIVSAII 2010 HITN01lT PROJECT; RODE 372b ~~° Eastbotad ~ Hoatbo~aui ~ tlorthtmwfd ~ SouthEmmd L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ l T R qo. Lones ~ ~ 2 1 ~ 3 1 ~ 1 3 yol~aeac ~ ~ 27 137 636 3~ 37 760 lone Hidth ~ ~12.D 12.0 12.0 11.012.0 12.0 RTOR Volc ~ ~ 0~ 0~ 0 Sigreol Operations Vhose combirotion 1 2 3 6 ~ S 6 7 8 EB Left FHB left Thru ~ Thru ° Right ~ ~ Right ° lads ~ Peda NB Left ° ~SB Loft ° Thru ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right Vade ~ ~ Made NB Right ~EB Right SB RigM ~ ~F18 Right Green 15AGreen 57A TelloN/A-R < ~TelloN/A-R 6 O Lost Time 3.0 ~LOet Tice 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sect ihwe eombinotion order. O1 GS Interoeet ian 9erfor~nee Summry lane Groff: Ad)' Sat v/e g/c Approoth: Nvmts Cap Floc Ratio Ratio Doloy LOS Doloy LOS uB L 2675 535 0.05 0.20 19.7 C 19.2 C R 1515 303 0.68 0.20 19.1 C NB T 5366 3876 0.13 0.75 2.2 A 2.2 A R 1669 1065 0.00 0.75 2.0 A SB L 1019 T59 0.05 0.T5 2.< A 2.6 A T 5366 3876 0.23 0.75 2.< A ]nteraeet ion Deloy = 6.1 (nee/vch) Interooetien LOS = A O NOR: SIGNALIZED IBTERSER IOR SIJRRARY Center for dieroeosputera In Troncportation O vmo~°mwmwm m°eaww¢wum°mmowwvvamn Streets: (E•11) dICOLAS RD (d-S) H1dCNESTER RD Aro lyst: ERIC LRlDERFlODD File daax: 3726pdN0.MC9 I•D. 7 Arco type: Other 10-28-92 Pp LEAK Comment: CpP/RIVSAd 2010 HITNOUT PROJECT; BODE 3726 1 Eaatbo~md 1 ilestbota~d 1 dorthtmund 1 Southi»wd I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----i---- ---- ----I-•-- ---- ---- do. Lanas 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 I 1 3 Volumes 1 1 17 1111 819 301 158 756 Lane Nietn 1 11z.o 1z.o1 u.o n.ollz.o 1z.o RTDR vole 1 I of of o ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sigrol Operotioro phose cosbirotion 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 8 EB Left IdB Left Thru I Thru ° Right 1 stgnt ° weds I I~ N Left ° ISB Left ° TAru 1 Thru ° Right ° 1 Right Veds 1 pads q8 Rf ght IEB Right SB Right IHB Right Green 15A IGraan 57A Tellw/A-R < ITallou/A•R G O Lost lime 3.0 (Lost Tima 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 seu phase eombi ration ordar: O1 63 Intersection performonee Summry ~ - Lero Groff: Adj Sat v/e g/e Approoeh: Rvmts Cep Flou Rotio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS UB L 2673 535 0.04 0.20 19.6 C 18.5 C R 1515 303 0.39 0.20 18.3 C dB T 5346 3876 0.24 0.73 2.4 A 2.< A R 1469 1065 0.03 0.75 2.0 A 58 L 586 425 0.39 0.75 3.5 A 2.5 A T 5346 3876 0.23 0.75 2.3 A Intersection Daley ° 3.5 (ace/veh) Intersection LOS ° A O XCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSERIOd SLati. ART Center for Nicracoeputers In ironsportot ion °m°~~ Strretc: (E•N) {a1RRlETA MOT SPRINGS (N-S) NINCNESTER !m Analyst: ERIC UNDERF+AOD File Nam: 3517A~.NC9 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 Ap PEAK ~-~. 8 Convent: OiP/RIVSAN 2010 F1ITNWT PROJER; NODE 3517 ~~ Eostha~ad ~ Neat6mo~d ~ Nerthbaald ~ South6o~aid L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R qo. Lanes ~ 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1( 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 volumes ~ 196 33s 68~ 11 563 n<~ 56 36z 1B~ 7s ro n9 Laru Nidth X12.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0 Signal Oparotions Phase eenbiration 1 2 3 6 ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Left ° BNB Left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° . Peels ° ~ p¢ds ° Eg Left ° ~SB Left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° Peels ° ~ Pads ° NB Ri0ht ~EB Right SB Right ~kA Right Green 13A 20A Groan 9A 22A Yellow/A-R b b ~YelloN/A-R b b O Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ~LOat Ti¢e 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 seta Phase ce~irot ion order: 01 02 G3 06 Intersection Perfors.~nee Sumory Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/e ppprppq~; Nvmts Cap Flou Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay l05 EB L 1693 2% 0.70 0.17 28.3 D 19.7 C T 3566 936 0.60 0.26 15.8 C R 1318 366 0.21 0.26 1<.9 B VB L 1693 2% O.OG 0.17 20.8 C 17.5 C T 3566 936 0.66 0.26 17.8 C R 7318 366 0.35 0.26 15.7 C NB L 1643 212 0.28 0.13 26.3 C 15.9 C . T 3566 1025 0.37 0.29 16.8 B R 1609 605 0.05 0.29 13.3 B 58 L 1693 212 0.36 0.13 2<.9 C 16.1 C T 356< 1025 O.Z3 0.29 1<.0 B R 1609 605 0.31 0.29 16.5 B I nterseetian Delay ° 17.5 (gee/veh) - Interaretion LOS • C O XCd: S)GdALIZID IdTERSECTION SCI~ART Center For picroeooputera !n Tronsportotian e°pfi°°°L°E°~°C~p°~p°EC°°°~ °Q°°Y°°°°Y6 Streets: (E-F() 1a1RRIETA NOT SPRIdGS (q-S) HIdCNESTER RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERIAOD File drsa: S517Ppd0.NC9 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 Pp PEAK I-~• 8 Covment: CpP/RIVSAd 2010 HITNOUT PROJECT; BODE 3517 II66tii6~EE~°II6i°°E0o°C°EY°° I Eoatbuaid 1 Flestlmwd 1 dorthbotaid I seuth6o~asi I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---•i---- ---- ---- de. Larros 1 1 z 1 1 1 z 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 z 1 Vol~mss 1 zz6 300 661 14 524 1361 60 367 211 x 111 63 Lsne uidtn 11z.o u.o B.o11z.o 1z.o a.ollz.o 1z.o 1o.olu.o 1z.o 10.0 RiOR Volc I O1 O1 01 0 Signal Op2roti erm Phoae eosbirotion 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 8 EB Le}t ° 1dB Lett ° ' 7hru ° 1 Thru ° Right ° 1 Right ° Peds ° I Pods ° d8 Lett ° 1S0 Loft ° Thru ° 1 Thru ° Right ° I Right v Peds ° 1 Peda ° NB Right 1E8 Right se Right 1l(a Right Green i4A 20A 1Grean 9A 21A Tollou/A-R < < 1TOlloa/A-R 4 Lost Ties 3.0 3.0 1Laat Tica 3.0 3.0 Cye le Length: BD sees Phase eoebinotion ordar: O1 02 G3 C6 Inteneetion Perfonmanee Summry lone Grotp: Adj Sat v/e B/c Approoeh: pvmts Cap Floa Rotio Rstio Oeloy LOS Delsy LOS EB L 1695 317 0.75 0.79 29.8 D 20.8 C i 3564 936 0.35 0.26 15.6 C R 1318 346 0.20 0.26 ti.9 B Es l 1693 317 0.05 0.19 20.2 C 17.3 C T 3564 936 0.62 0.26 17.6 C R 1318 346 0.41 0.76 16.2 C NB L 1693 212 0.30 0.13 24.< C 16.5 ~ C T 3564 980 0.<1 0.28 15.5 C R 1409 387 0.06 0.28 13.8 B 58 L 1693 212 0.17 0.15 23.8 C 15.7 C T 3566 980 ~ 0.13 0.28 14.1 B R 1409 387 0.17 0.28 14.3 B I nterseetion Deloy v 18.0 (sae/veh) Interoeetion l05 ° C O O O NGt: SIGNALI2ED IdTERSELTIOA SU'...(ART o~ ~n Center For picrxosWters In Trortsportot i ® O s°assvvss°ammavaaQaanom°va° ~ rt Streets: (E•H) RARCMO CALIF. RD (q-S) 1-15 SB RANGS Anslyst: NAS File dts¢: 5095Araa0.XC9 I D 9 Ares type: Other 17'9'92 Ad PEAK • . CoaRent: GIG/RIySAX 2010 HITNOUT GROJECT; BODE 5095 Eacthowld ~ tlesttmund ~ dorthl>auna ~ Sotrthbatmd l T R ~ l T _.._ ____ .. R ~ L T R ~ L T .........._. I_. _. __.. .... R _ I I_._. ____ __ Xo. lanes ~ 2 < ~ 1 2 ' ~ ~ 2 ._. 1 9olunms ~ 353 2s8) 367 748 ~ ~ 21 116 larrc Hidth ~ 12.0 X12.0 12.0 ~ X12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ ~ 0 S i gro l Oparat i orts Chase eombinot ion 1 2 3 4 ~ S 6 7 8 EB Lett ~d8 Lett Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peds ~ Geda F!B Left ° ~St Left ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru Right ~ Right ° Geds ~ Geds 88 Right DEB Right SB Right ~H8 Right Green 20A 18A ~Graan 20A O yellow/A-R 4 < Lost Tisx 3.0 3.0 ~yelloa/A-R 4 Last Ticx 3.0 Cycle Length: TO aecs Chase eosbination order: O1 02 GS Interaeetien Gerformenee Susmory Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/c Approach: Nvmts Cop floe Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Deloy LOS EB TR 3339 906 0.75 0.27 17.1 C 17.1 C N L 1693 508 0.76 0.30 21.4 C 9.8 B T 3564 2169 0.38 0.61 4.4 A Se l 2673 802 0.03 0.30 13.1 B 12.3 B R 1s1s <ss D.n o.30 1z.1 e Intersection Deloy ° 12.4 (oee/veh) Interaeet ion LOS o B O XCp: SIGNALIZED INTERSEfT10'A SIFSiART Curter For XieroCmputers In Transportation °vamsaaaaassmaaaamvvamvamvmmvvmsmeamavavmaamvmaaaaaaa vmm Streets: (E-N) RANCXO CALIf. RD 1N-S) 1-15 SB RANPS Arolyct: pA5 Ffle Ncmx: 5095PpN0.XW D 9 I Aree Type: Other 11-9-92 Pa PEAK . . Conment: C)1P/RIVSAN 2010 HITXOUT PROJECT; RODE 5095 vvamvaamaammmaavamm°a®mav°°vm vwaaavm°mammvmm®m mmaa I Eostboimd ~ F)estbota~d ~ gorthbotad ~ Sauthtmia~d 1 L T R 1 L T .._. .___ ____ . R I L T a 1 L T .._. _.._ _._.1.... .._. .._ s .... 1 1.... _.__ No. Lanes ~ 2< 1 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 9ol~aezs ~ 658 5591 354 686 ~ ~ 126 151 lane Nidth 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 RTOR vole 1 01 01 1 0 Sigrol Oparationa Phase eonbi ration 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 8 EB left 1NB Left Tnru ° - 1 Thru sient ° 1 sight Peels 1 Peels FA Left ° i5B Left ° Thru ° ° 1 Thru aient 1 steht ° Peels 1 ~Peds q8 Right 1EB Right SB Right 1F,8 Right Green 20A 33A 1Graen 15A Tel lau/A-R < < 1Tallou/A-R 6 lost Tima 3.0 3.0 1Loat Tifm 3.0 Cysle Length: 80 sees Phafe cosmirotion ordzr: 01 02 G3 Intersection Performance Sustmry Lora! Groff: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approoeh: Xvmts Cap Floe Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Deloy LOS EB TR 3319 1411 0.95 0.43 23.4 C 23.4. C NB L 1695 444 0.79 0.26 27.4 D 10.4 B T 3566 2584 0.29 0.75 2.S A SB l 2675 535 0.26 0.20 20.6 C 20.1 C R 1515 3O3 0.52 0.20 19.6 C I nteroeat ion Deloy ° 17.8 (see/veh) Interaeetion LOS a C O O O MOA: SIGNALIZED IdTERSELT105 SIG.IART Center For dierocoaPUtera In Tronspartat ion O streets: (E-Fl) RANCXO CJLLIF. RD (q-S) I-15 qB RApPS Anelyct: tus File dcsz: 5098atmD.XC9 Area Type: Other I.D. 10 11-9-92 Aq VEAK Cosaxnt: cNP/RI VSAq 2010 tlITNOUT VROJECT; dWE 5098 1 East6o~aid 1 Naatpound l gorthbo~auf 1 SouthboiaM 1 L T R i L T ---- ---- ----f---- ---- R 1 L T R 1 L T R - - I No. Lanes 1 1 2 1 2 - -I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 1 volumes 1 117 25a 1 75L 2BD1 361 2001 lane Nidth 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.01 RTOR Vols 1' O1 O1 O1 Signal Opxrations Phone easbinot ion 1 2 3 6 1 5 6 7 6 EB Lett -° 1dB Laft ° Thru ° ° 1 Thru Right 1 Right ° Peels 1 Vada HB Left 15B Lett Thru ~ ° 1 Thru Right 1 Right Veda 1 Pads NB Ri0ht lEB Right SB Ri0ht 1FS8 Rift Green 18A ZBA {Groan 22A O Yellow/A-R 6 6 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 1Talloa/A-R b heat Tice 3.0 Cycle Length: BO aegis Vhoae eoabirotian ordxr. 01 02 G3 Int¢raection Pertoraaeue Summery Lane Group: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approoeh: XveKC Cap floe Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS De1oy LOS EB L 1693 <02 0.31 0.26 19.2 C 8.6 B T 3566 2272 0.13 0.66 3.7 A N TR 3620 1260 0.92 0.36 Z2.8 C 22.8 C RS L 1515 636 0.87 0.29 32.7 D 26.7 D R 1515 636 0.68 0.29 15.8 C I nterseet ian Deloy = 21.1 feet/veh) lnteraeetian LOS ° C O NON: SIGNALIZED IRTERSECT ION SU..dARY Center For dieroeonputerc In Trancportotion O aasvvmsvvaaamvasovsvava¢asvv®eaaaavasavsavsamaasvvvmsvvmsammmv Streets: (E-N) RANCXO IJILIF. RD (N-S) I-ts qB RAdPS Analyst: dA5 File Nrme: s098PgN0.NC9 Area Type: Other 11-9-92 PX PEAK ~•~• ~~ Cmm2nt: CXP/RIVSAN 2010 F1ITXOUT PROJECT; BODE 5098 aaaavmmaassmvaavvaaoaavvvvsmm I Eoatbamd I IAxitlmund I dorthbaa,e I Southltaa,d I L T R I L T s I L r R I L r R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- do. Lama 11 2 I 2< 11 1 1 valuoas I s1 731 I 77s 2011 z4s ss61 Lane e;dtn 11z.o u.o I 12.0 11z.o 1z.o1 sroR vole I of of of Signol Operatiorm Phase eoobinotion 1 2 3 < I s 6 7 B EB Left ° INB Left ° ihru ° ° I Thru Right I Right ° Peck I Pella FJR left ISR Left Thru ° I Thru Rignc ° I sight Peels I Pella NB Right IEB Right SB Right INB Right Green 11A 27A IGrean 30A Yellw/A-R 4 < IYelloN/A-R < O Loot Tiate 3.0 3.0 ILoat Tixa 3.0 Lycle Lergth: BO secs Phoae eosbirotion order: 01 O2 d5 inteneation PerforaNUxe Sunmary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/e g/c Approoch: dvmts Cop Floe Rotio Rotio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1643 254 0.21 0:15 22.8 C 8.2 B T 3564 1916 0.42 0.54 7.2 B FRl TR 34s2 1208 0.89 0.35 21.2 C 21.2 C NB L 1515 587 0.44 0.39 14.1 B 31.6 D R 1515 587 1.00 0.39 39.3 D I nterseetion D¢loY ° 20.3 (see/veh) Intersection LOS ° C O XOX: SIGXALIZED IXTERSELTID.Y SLCgART O °°~~°°~~Center For dierocomputerc In Trormp°rtotion Streets: (E-H>°7a)RRIMA X0T SPRIdGS Td•S) I-15 SB RAL>PS Analyst: RAS File dce: 5089At+.'W.NC9 '.D. 11 Aree type: Other 11-13.92 Ad TEAK Cooment: Wp/RIVSAX 2010 HITXOIJT PROJEtt ~. I Eoatbamd I llectbound I dorthbma~d I Smrehba~aid It T R IL T R IL T a IL T a I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----f---- ---- ---- Xo. Lanes I 7 1 I 1 1 I I T 7 valianee I z7G 66I z hoe I 17so 33 Larx Hidtn I 7z.o 7z.oi7z.o u.o I I7z.o u.o RTOR vats I oI oI ~ o Si9rol Operotiatm phase combination 1 2 3 G I 5 6 7 8 EB Left Ida Loft Thru ° I Thru Right ° ~ Right peck ~ I pads UB left ° ISO Laft ° Thru ° ° I Thru R7Oht ° I Right ° Pads ° I Pcda . dB Right IEO Right SB Right IF9 Right Green 71A 29A IOraen 18A O Tellou/A-R G < ITel loa/A-R b Lost Tiax 3.0 3.0 ILoat Ti~z 3.0 Cyele Length: 70 sees Phase eombirotion order. O7 02 GS Interoeetion Perfon~nee Sums~ry Lane Group: Adj iot v/e g/e Approoch: pvmts Cep Floe Rotio Ratio Deloy LOS Deloy LOS EB T 1782 76G 0.29 0.63 8.5 B B.G B R 15)5 6G9 0.07 O.b3 T.6 B FB L 7693 290 0.01 0.17 18.3 C <.0 A T 7782 1166 0.37 0.6G 3.9 A SB l 1515 <71 0.38 0.27 76.1 C 15.6 C R 1515 <71 0.09 0.27 12.3 0 I nterceetion Deloy ° 7.8 lase/veh) Interoxtion LOS = B O NCp: 51GBALIZED IdTERSECT IOJ SLCdARY Center For pierocomputers In Traruportation O OQRLiiiiiiii6666iiiiii6666i666°ii0a6iiII°060a66°II°°°66°CC°°i~~°ii°i°E Streets: (E-d) KURRIETA NOT SPRIRGS (d•S) 1-15 SB RAdPS Analyst: W1s File dome: 5089PCRQD.dC9 I.D. 11 Aree Type: Other ii-13-92 Pp PEAK - Comment: CNP/RIVSAd 2010 HITXOUT PROJECT Eestbo~a+d ~ uoctbwa,d I dorthhoia~d I sauthbotatd L T R ~ L T R I l T R ~ L T R I---- .._. __--I---- ---.._--I---. ___. ___.I.___ .__. ____ do. Lanes I 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 11 7 valance ~ s1s <91 6 ssz ~ i s96 11 . Lone Hidth I 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 ~ 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vola 1 01 - 01 1 0 Signol Operatiorm Phase combination 1 2 S 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Lett idB left Thru ° ~ ihru Right ° I Right Pads 1 Pede _ FA) Left ° 15B ~ Lett ° Thru ° ° ( Thru Right ° ( Right ° Pads ° ° i Pads d8 Right 1EB Right SB Right Zia Right Green 6A 22A Green SOA O Yelloe/A-R 4 L 1Yellon/A-R 6 Lost Timz 3.0 3.0 1LOat Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 7D Dees Phoae eombiwtion ordar: 01 02 GS Intersection Perforoorxe Stam¢ary Lane Groff: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approoeh: gvmis Cop Floe Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB T 1782 586 0.93 033 27.L D 25.9 D R 1515 498 0.70 ~ 0.33 10.6 B HB L 1693 169 O.OL 0.10 21.6 C 10.9 B T 1782 840 0.69 0.47 10.8 B ' SB L 1515 671 0.93 0.64 28.8 D 28.4 D R 1515 671 0.02 0.64 ~ 7.1 B lntersection Deloy 6 22.0 (act/veh) IMeroxtian LOS ° C O BW: SiGBALIZED IdTERSELTi0`~ SD:OLIRT O Curter For dierocosputers In Tronsportation °°°°°a°:°°.~~~~~ Streets: (E-Fl) 131RRIETA BOT SPR1dG5 (d-S) 1-15 d8 RApPS Aro lyst: qA5 File drx: SOBBM;NA.XC9 I.p_ 12 Aree type: other 17.13-92 Ad PEAK CasarMlL: CdP/RIVSAd 2010 FlITNOUT PROJECT ~~ Eost6o~ ~ destbo~ad ~ dorthbaw+d ~ Southhaaid L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R do. Lows i_i__ ;_. ""i'"' _;_. •;"i-;" ___. _;__i_•__ ____ ____ volumes ~ 9 ass ~ 376 546 34 s~ Lanz 7);eth ~1z.o 1z.o ~ 12.o u.o~iz.o 1z.o~ RTOR Volc ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ S iBnal Oparatians Phase eoemination 1 2 3 4 ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Lett ° ~dB LefL ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru Right ~ Rift ° Peds ° ° ~ Pads HB left ~SB Left Thru ° ~ ThN Right ° ~ Right Peds ~ Pads dB Right ~EB Right 58 Right ~!'! Right Greco 11A 29A ~Groen 18A O Tellod/A-R 4 4 ~TOlloa/A•R 6 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ~Loat Tirx 3.0 Cyele Length: 7D secs Phaae eoad~i rot ion order: O1 02 A - lntereeetion Perforcanee Suacary Lone Group: Adj Sat v/c B/c Approoeh: dvmts Cap Floy Ratio Ratio Delay l05 Delay LOS EB L 1693 290 0.03 0.17 18.< C <.0 A T 7782 7146 0.33 0.64 3.7 A N T 7782 76G 0.52 0.43 9.9 B 16.0 C R 151s 649 0.89 0.43 20.3 C dB L is is 417 0.69 0.27 74.5 D 1<.2 B R 1s 1s 411 0.01 O.Z7 12.0 D I nterseet ion Deloy = 12.7 (see/veh) Intersection LOS = B O MCq: SIGBALI2ED IaTER5ECT10^J SLC'YART Center For aicroeomputers In Tronsportotion O avssaaaaaasaaaanasaaaaaasaaaaaaasaasaaoaaoaep®aaaaaomeaaamaastasavaa Streets: (E-H) NURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (a-S) 1-15 aB RApPS Analyst: pas Ftle acme: soaePaao.xcv I.D. 1 2 Area Type: Other 11-13-92 Pp PEAK Comment: CpP/RIVSAa 2010 aITNOIIT PROJECT asmmasa--~~~---=aas Eosthoeaed ~ Hestbo:aed ~ aorthboea+d ~ Southboemd L T R ~ L r R ~ L T R ~ L r R ao. Lanes i.;.. .'-' .___ L___ -;-' .''.i.'._ "" ''° L_....-' "^ voleanes ~ 281083 ~ <% 327 62 3~ Lone Hidth X12.0 12.0 ~ 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 RTOR vols ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ S i gro l Operat i ore Phase combination 1 2 3 4~~ s 6 7 a EB Left ° ~a8 Left ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru Right ~ Right ° Pede ° ° ~ Petla FlH Left ~SB Lett Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peels ~ Peda qB Right ~EB Right SB Right ~a8 Right Greece 14A 29A Green 15A Tellou/A-R 4 G ~Talloa/A-R 6 / \ lost lime 3.0 3.0 ~LOat Tina 3.0 1\ /I Cycle Lergth: 70 secs Phnse eombirotfan order: 01 02 g Intersection Performarxe Semomry Lane Groe~: Atli Sot v/c e/e Approoch: Nvmis Cap Flae Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 363 0.08 0.21 16.7 C 16.2 B T 1782 1222 0.93 0.69 1G.2 B a8 T 1782 764 0.68 0.43 11.9 B 11.2 B R 1515 649 0.53 0.43 10.1 B aB L 7515 346 0.19 0.23 16.6 C 16.4 c R 1515 346 0.01 0.23 13.5 D I nteneetion Deloy a 13.1 (ane/veh) Interoection LOS = B O NCp: SIGRALIZED IdTERSECTIOS SLCSIARY Center For Nierocotputers In Tronsportati on ezeaz°saa Streets: (E•H) iA1RRIETA IIOT SPR IRGS fd-S) .I-215 SB RA)1P5 Anslyct: ERIC LRIDERilOOD F1le dt~: S195At~.RC9 I.D. 13 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 Ap PEAK Comment: CpP/RI95Ad 2010 H1TXOl)T PROJECT; BODE 5795 eas° Eostlm:aid I eastbound I northbound I 1;authbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R ~___. ___. ""I'... .___ ""I"" ____ ""i"" ____ ____ do. locus ~ 7 7 ~ 1 7 I 11 1 vales ~ 667 x~ uo 96s I ~ 7t 772 Lone F)idth ~ 12.0 12.0172.012.0 I 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vots ~ 01 01 ~ 0 Signol Oparotiom O Phoee cotrbination 1 2 S 6 1 S 6 7 8 EB left IOB Latt Thru ° 1 Thru Right ° ~ Right Pads ° ~ PGdn e8 left ° ISB Left ° Thru ° ° 1 Thru Right 1 Right ° Peels e I Pcd3 e RB Right IEB Right SB Right 1lie Right Greco 13A 35A IGro«: 2DA YelloWA-R < < ~ IYOl log/A-R b Lost Tiox 3.0 3.0 (lost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phone ee~irotion ordar: 01 P2 G3 Interoectian Perforexiee Sugary Lane Group: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approoeh; pvlllts Cep Flotl Rotio Ratio Deloy LOS Deloy LOS EB T 1782 802 0.61 0.65 11.7 B 11.6 B R 1515 682 O.Qb 0.65 8.0 B HB L 1643 2% 0.50 0.17 23.8 C 11.9 B T 1782 1181 0.86 0.66 10.1 B SB L 1515 398 0.19 0.26 17.6 C 16.2 C R 1515 398 0.30 0.26 15.6 C Intersection Delay ° 12.2 <aec/veh) IM¢roection LOS o B O XCd: SIWIALIZED INTERSECT309 SLCC7ART Canter For dieroeovputon In Tronsportation Str~cet~<E-H= ~RIETA MOT SPRIRGS (d-S) 1-215 SB RApPS Arolyst: ERIC UNDERUOOO file dcsa: 5195PpN0.N[9 area Typa: other to-28-92 Pp PEAK I.D. 13 Comaant: CdP/RIVSAR 2070 HITNOLR PROJECT; BODE 5195 °~~ ~ Eaacbo~ad ~ ltesttroiaid I dortn~a,a I Soutneo<a,e L T R ~ L T R I L T R .I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- do. Lorros I 1 1 ~ 1 1 I 11 1 vaumes ~ 1233 63~ 3G 896 ~ ~ 66 u3 Larce Hidth ~ u.o tz.oltz.o 1z.o ~ ~1z.o u.o sroR vale ~ o~ o~ I o Sigrol Op2rotioro Phoae eoamirotion 1 2 3 i ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Lett ~dB Lett Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Pads ° ~ pads HB Left ° ~SB Le}t ° Thru °~ ° ~ Thty Right I Right ° Peds ° I Pads ° dB Right ~EB Right SB Right IFA Right Green 6A 56A Green 9A Tellw/A-R 3 G ~yel loa/A-R < Lost Tina 3.0 3.0 ~LOat Ties 3.0 Cycle length: 80 sees Phasa eosbirotion ordar: O1 02 L3 Intersection Perfonorxe Su~ory ' Lane Groff: Adj Sat v/c g/e Approoeh: Nvmts Cap Floe Rotio Ratio Delay LOS Deloy LOS EB T 1782 1225 1.06 0.69 t0.9 E 39.0 D R 1515 t0i2 0.06 0.69 2.6 A H8 L 1693 127 0.28 0.08 26.9 D 3.8 A T 1782 tG26 0.66 0.80 2.9 A SB L 1515 189 0.36 0.13 2i.9 C 31.0 D R 1515 189 0.80 0.13 33.8 D Intersection Delay ° 2~.9 (set/veh) Intersection LOS = C O O O N01: S1GRAliZID ldTERSECTIOS SIGp1ART Center For gieroeoeputero In Tranaportotian O °°p°°°°°°°~DII°° Streets: fE-b) g1RRIETA NOT SPRIdGS (d•S) I-214 dB RApPS Aro lyst: ERIC WDERFKIOD file dce: 4198AK80.MC9 ' D 94 Ares type: Other - . 10-28-92 Ad PEAK Consent: WP/R)VSAd 2010 HITN01lT PROJECT; OODE 4198 ~ Eoatbound ~ dast6osod! ~ dorthbows! ~ South6waid L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R do. Lanes ( 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 voluees ~ 48 <78 ~ 968 62~ 38 41~ Lone Hidth X12.0 12.0 ~ 12.0 1 2.012.0 12.0 RTOR Yols ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ Sigrol Op2rotimm Phase eosbirution 1 2 3 4 ~ 4 6 7 8 EB Left ° ~dB Left ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right ° Peds ° ~ P~ ° HB Left ~SO Laft Thru ° - ( Thru Right ° ~ Right Peels ° ~ Peels RB Right ~EB Right SB Right ~LB Right Green bA 48A ~Grovl 14A Tellou/A-R 3 4 ~TOlloa/A-R 6 O Lost Tisu 3.0 3.0 ~LOat Tir:x 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 secs Phoae coabirot ion order: 01 II2 G3 Intersection Perfort~nee Suwnry Lane Group: Adj SDt v/e g/e Appreoeh: punts Cop Flee Rotio Rotio Deloy l05 Oeloy LOS EB L 1693 127 O.CB 0.08 29.2 D 4.7 B T 1782 1292 0.39 0.73 2.8 A N T 1782 1091 0.95 0.61 17.8 C 17.2 C R 1414 928 0.03 0.61 <.0 A d8 L 7514 303 0.13 0.20 20.0 C 18.6 C R 1414 303 0.18 0.20 17.2 C Intersection Deloy a 13.4 (sec/veh) Interoeetian LOS ° B O xCd: stONAL12ED IaTERSECTIO.Y SIDdARr Lenter For dieroto~uters In TrarxpOrtotian O v®eesas°msaev°evvvmv°ev°mvaasvvem°w°vmmauevvvvva°weevmesaa° Streets: (E'H) KURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (a-S) 1-215 d8 RANPB Aro lyst: ERIC UaDERF100D File dame: 5198P1BR]. XC9 I D. 1~ • Arco Type: Other 10-28-92 Pr7 PEAK Comment: Ci1P/RIVSAa 2010 FIITNOI7T PROJECT; BODE 5196 Eastbound ~ Uestbound ~ dorthbo~avi ~ Southbound L T R ~ L T R ~ l T R ~ L T 8 do, longs ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 volumes ~ 80 1218 ~ 886 39~ G7 2G7~ Ltra didth X12.0 12.0 ~ 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ sfgrol Operotfons Phase combination 1 2 3 G ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Left ° ~d8 Lett ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru sight ° ~ Right ° Pads' ° ~ Peda ° FAI Left - ~s8 Lett Thru ° ~ ThrY Right ° ~ Right Peels ° ~ P¢da dB Right ~EB Right SQ RighT ~F~ Right Green 6A G7A ~Oraen 16A cellar/A•R 3 G gallon/A-R G Lost Timx 3.0 3.0 ~Loat T3az 3.0 O Cycle Length: 80 sees Phaae eombirotian ordar: O1 02 t3 lnteneetion Performy+ee Summry Lonx Group: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approach; N.mts Cep Flar Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 127 0.66 0.08 35.6 D 26.6 D T 1782 7270 1.01 0.71 26.0 D aB T 1782 1069 0.87 0.60 13.6 B 13.2 B R 1515 909 0.05 0.60 <.2 A aB L 1515 322 0.15 0.21 19.5 C 26.3 p R 1515 322 0.81 0.21 27.5 D - Intersection Delay ° 21.6 (see/veh) Intersection LOS = C O 0 II3[CR~ IInteasectlon ~aaealysls ~orl~sheets Fear 2010 ®6'ith Peojed O 0 NCp: SIGdALIZED IdTER5ECT10R SUn`"gART Center For pieroeo~utere In Trtutsportation O v°as°°°s°mav°mm°me°omvvvvv~®°nmeon Streets: !E-tl) tl1dCXESTER RD !d-t) i-15 SB RApPt Arolyst: ERIC uNDERd00D File dtrx: 5106ApFN.Nt9 '.D• 1 Area type: Other 10.28.92 Ap PEAK Casewrft: CqP/RIVBAN 2010 tliTM PROJECT; BODE 5106 °®m Eostbo~avi ~ l~mthmaid ~ OorthEow~d ~ teuthh ma~d L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R do. L¢nes ~ 2 1 ~ 2 ~ ~ 1 2 Volumes ~ 617 117 806 ~ ~ 217 339 Lane tlidth ~ 12.0 12.0 12.0 ~ X12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ ~ 0 tigrol Oparotions Phase combirotion 1 2 3 4 ~ S 6 7 B EB Left ~d8 Left Thru ° ~ Thrv Right ° ~ Right beds ° ~ Pads ° dB Lett ° DEB L¢tt ° Thru ° ~ Thru Right ( Right ° . Peels ° ~ Peck ° d8 Right ~EB Right _ SB Right ° ~tl8 Right Green 80. 33A ~Gr¢en 27A O Yellor/A'R b b ~Y¢lloa/A•R b Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ~LOat Tice 3.0 Cyele Length: 80 ¢ecs Phase emmi ration order: O1 O2 g ]nteraxtion Perfonarrx¢ Summry lane Group: Adl tat v/e g/e Approaeh : pvmts Cap Floy Rotio Rotio Deloy LOt Delay LOS EB 7 3564 1515 0.30 0.63 9.8 B 9.7 B R 1515 644 0.19 0.63 9.3 B uB 7 3564 1515 0.59 0.63 11.8 B 11.8 B s8 L 1515 530 0.43 0.35 15:5 C Lt.2 B R 3029 1601 0.27 0.66 8.5 0 I ntercection Del¢y = 11.0 tax/v¢h) Inter¢xtion LOS = 8 n XCp: SI Gt1ALIZEO IXTERSER IOd SlF~' ARY Center For Xicroeomputerc In Tronsportotion ===DQ°i=p°==p°°Y=IIpE6IIDG°=°=i°==II==II======09II®=66=0E=99=Y=tC=IIIIffiC=E/ Streets: (E•H) dIRCXESTER RD (d-5) 1.15 SB RApPS D 1 Analyst: ERIC WIDERFlDfA File Xtse: 5106Pth1P.XC9 ' . . Arco type: Other 10.28-92 Pp PEAK Comrtent: CpP/RIVSAX 2010 HITX PROJER; RODE 5106 mvaem==s==aaav==aam=mm Eesttw~md ~ Hest6o~au1 ( Xorthboiau! ~ South6oiaai L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R do. Lanes ~ 2 1 ~ 2 ~ ~ 1 2 Volumes ~ 960 x1~ 1106 ~ ~ 241 325 Lorce Hidth ~ 12.0 12.0 12.0 ~ l12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0) ~ 0 Slgnal Operations Phone conbination 1 2 _ 3 4 ~ 5 6 7 8 EB left f RB Left Thru ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Pads ° ~ Pads ° N Left ° ~ Sg Left ° Thru ° ~ Thru Right ~ Right ° Pads ° ~ PedB ° XB Right D EB Rf ght SB Right ° ~H8 Right Green 20A 36A Green 22A Yeitou/A-R < 4 ~Yeltoa/A-R 6 . Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ~Loct Tina 3.0 O Cycle Length: 90 seu Phaae eombinotion ordzr: O1 02 03 Intersection Perforsmnee Su~mry lane Group: Adj Sot v/c g/e Approach: Xmots Cap Floe Rotio Rotio Deloy LOS Delay LOS EB T 3564 1165 0.72 0.41 15.4 C 15.1 C R 1515 623 0.58 0.41 14.0 g Hg T 3564 1465 ~ 0.83 0.41 17.9 C 17.9 C SB L 1515 387 0.66 0.26 25.6 'D ti.6 C R 3029 1481 0.24 0.49 8.6 B Intersection Delay = 16.3 (aec/veh) Intersection LOS • C O NOY: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIOJ SIF:WRY Center For NieraCd7~tJteK !n Transportot ion sasae°aassasvaave==aw°vaaa°avavmmm~nm O Streets: (E•d) diNCNESTfR RD tR-S),1-15 RB RAttPS Analyst: ER1C UNDERFi00D File dts;e: 51WAt8M.NC9 f D 2 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AR PEAL Consent: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 dITN PROJECT; RODE 5109 a®aw®° Eastbound ~ dastbound ~ Rorthbound ~ Southbound l T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L t R qo. Lanes ~ 1 2 ~ 2 1 ~ 1 2 ~ volunmc ~ 1K 682 ~ 1053 263 98 573 Lone didth X12.0 12.0 ~ 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ Signet Oparotians Phase eosbinetion i 2 3 6 ~ 5 6 7 8 EB left ° ~RB Lett ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru ' Right ~ Right ° Peck ° ~ Pa~da FRi Left ~ SB Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Pads ° ~ P~ NB Right ~ Eg Right SB Right ~ kB Right Green t0A 28A ~Grven 20A YelloN/A-R 6 6 ~ Yalloa/A-R 6 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ~ LOat Tice 3.0 O Cye le length: 7t1 sees Phase c~birotlon Order: 41 42 fA Interaeetion Perfon~nee S~t'd.ary Lane Group: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approoeh: RNntc Cap FIoN Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS De1oy LOS EB L 1693 266 0.57 0.16 Z2.9 C 8.2 B T 3566 2189 0.26 0.61 <.0 A d8 T 3566 1677 0.79 0.61 13.3 8 12.6 B R 1515 628 0.61 0.61 9.5 D RB L 1515 655 0.23 0.30 16.0 g 17.2 C R 2673 802 0.79 0.30 17.7 C Intersection Delay = 12.7 (aec/veA) Interoettion LOS = B O XCH: SIGRALI2ED IdTERSECT 105 Sl!~(pRY Center For gicrotoa~uters In Transportation 6CIIQf°EL°iiiS°E4CII6°G°°6C63C6636 L°Q Streets: (E-F1) UINCNESTER RD (d-S) I-15 dB RAgPS Analyst: ERIC URDERFNIDD File dace: 5109PpdP.MC9 I D 2 Area type: Other 10-28.92 Pd PEAK Comment: CpP/RlVSAd 20)0 HITN PROJECT; BODE 4109 nnm°vaaaavvm°mvs.avoame I Eost6aa,d I ileatlmtmd 1 dortheoamd I southbotaal i L T R 1 L r R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- •--- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- do. Lanes 11 2 I 2 T I T 2 1 volunres 1 258 897 1 136) 3621 220 6131 Lortt Hidth 11z.o 1z.o 1 1z.o 1z.o112.o u.o1 RTOR Vola 1 01 01 01 Signal Oparotiorm Phose eoaminotion 1 2 3 6 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left ° 1dB Left ° Thru ° ° ( TAN Right 1 Right ° F'eds ~ 1 Pella WB Left 15B Laft Thru ° 1 Thru Right ° 1 Right Peds ~ I Peo1s dH Right 1EB Right SB Right 11fl1 Right Green 12A 28A 1Graen 18A Telloe/A-R 6 6 1Yelloy/A-R < lost Time 3.0 3.0 1Loat Tian 3.0 CYCIe Length: 70 aegis Phoae eos~irotian ordxr. O1 02 g Interaeetion Perforatuxe Susmary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/e g/e Approoeh; dvaKS Cap Floe Rotio Rotio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 316 0.87 0.19 35.8 D 10.9 B T 3566 2291 0.63 0.66 6.1 A FA T 3566 1677 1.00 0.61 29.< D 25.7 D R 1515 628 0.61 0.61 11.6 B 8B L 1515 <11 0.56 0.27 18.0 C 25.3 D R 2673 726 0.95 0.27 27.8 D Intersection Deloy ° 21.0 (aee/veh) Interoeetian l05 ° C O O O XOq: SIGXALIZED INTERSECTION SU:JIARY Center For dicrocosputers In Trsrupprtat ion O Streetc: (E -tl> tlIXCNESTER RD (d-S} YREZ RD Analyst: ER IC uXDERl100D File tltaz: 3727AdtlP.XC9 I.D. 3 Ares Type: Other 10-28-92 Ad PEAK Cmm2nt: CqP/R IVSAR 2010 tl1TM PROJECT ; BODE 3727 °~~~ Eastdmaid ~ Hoetbotmd ~ dorthbaaid ~ Southtrmmd L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R do. Loris ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 3 1 ~ 2 2 1 ~ 1 2 ' 1 Volumes ~ 261 54S 222 286 678 126 366 296 233 255 388 275 Lsrx tli dth 11.0 11.0 10.072.0 12.0 10.011.0 12.0 12.011.0 11.0 11.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0' 0~ 0 Sienal Operstiarrs Phase eambinetion 1 2 3 < ~ ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Lett ° ° dB Lett Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Rift ° Peels ° ~ P¢ds ° b8- Left ° ~ SB Left ° Thru ° ( Thru ° R 1Bht ~ sight ° Pads ° ~ P2d6 ° d8 Right ° ~ EB Right ° SB Right ° ~~. Ri0ht . Green 21A ZBA ~Orartn 18A 17A Yellow/A-R 6 < ~Yelloa/A-R b 6 Loct lime O 3.0 3.0 ~LOat Tice 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 700 sees Phase ea~irotian order: 01 02 Oi 06 I nterseet ion Perfontonee Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/e 8/e Approsch: pvmts Cap Floc Ratio Ratio De1oy LOS Deloy LOS EB L 7662 361 0.T0 0.22 31.5 D 20.0 C T 5186 150< 0.66 0.29 18.9 C R 1609 676 0.35 0.68 10.6 B ue l 1693 372 0.81 0.22 36.7 D 23.6 C T 5366 1550 0.51 0.29 19.3 C R 1609 609 0.33 0.29 18.1 C XB L 3781 606 0.63 0.19 29.8 D 23.9 C T 3566 662 0.57 0.18 2<.b C R 1575 606 0.60 0.60 16.1 B SB L 16L2 312 0.86 0.79 66.1 E 78.0 D T 3657 622 0.69 0.18 26.7 D R 1669 588 0.69 O.GO 1<.9 B I nterseet i on Daley = 23.6 (see/veh) Intersection LOS ° C NCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIOS Sl!"°IARY Center For nieraeotlputers In Transportation vmamaamasmvanvmvvmavaaavmaasaa aaavmaaamaamaavmmnaamaaa aaaa Streets: CE-b) HINCNESTER RD (N`S) YNE2 R0 Arolyst: ERIC UNDER1A0p File Ntm2: 3727P1RN.NC9 Area type: other 10.28-92 PN PEAK I.D. 3 Coament: f31P/RIVSAN 2010 HITN PROJECT; NODE 3727 maamamvmvmvsvasamamesavasamvs mmvmamvaaaaavmava®mvm vaaa Eastbound ~ Hestbound I Northho~a~d I Southtarmd 1 L T R i L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes ~ 467 867 2221 501 794 iOGI 425 469 4011 256 341 485 Lone Hidth 111.0 11.0 12.0112.0 12.0 10.0111.0 12.0 12.0111.0 11.0 11.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01. 01 0 Signol Operations Phaoe eos~instion i 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left ° 1NB Loft ° Thru ° 1 Thru ° Right ° I R;ght e Peels 1 Pads ° N8 Left ° 158 Laft ° Thru ° 1 Thru ° Right ° 1 Right e Peels 1 Peels ° NB Right ° 1EB Right ° SB Right ° iF,B Right ° Green 30A 20A 1Graen 17A t7A •Yollou/A-R 4 4 1Yellon/A-R 4 4 Lost Tisre 3.0 3.0 1Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 Gees Phase eosbina tion order: O1 O2 OS f16 . Intersection Perforsunee Suaonry Lone Group: AdJ Sot v/e g/e Approseh: gvmts Cap Floe Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Doloy LOS EB L 1642 509 0.97 0.31 i9.1 E 3G.9 D 7 5186 1089 0.92 0.21 32.8 D R 1515 591 0.40 0.39 1<.< B uB L 1645 525 1.00 0.31 57.5 E 3G.G D T 5346 1123 0.82 0.21 2T.3 D R 1<09 550 0.77 0.39 21.2 C NB L 3181 573 0.82 0.18 36.3 D 26.8 D T 3564 642 0.81 0.18 29.9 D R 1515 7<2 0.57 0.49 12.3 B SB L 1642 296 0.91 0.18 52.0 E 26.9 D T 3457 622 0.61 0.18 25.4 D R 1469 72O 0.71 0.49 14.8 B Intersection Delay a 31.4 (see/veh) Intersection LOS ° D O O O XCX: SIGNALIZED IgTERSECTI0`J S1F~11RT Center For gierxosputers In Transportation O ¢asa¢saaaeavaaavv¢¢a¢vvavaaav¢¢vvmvav a Streets: lE-d) tl1gCNESTER RD lq-S) REGIOdAL CTR. DRIVE Aro lyst: dA5 File dcs: 1397AdtlP.NC9 I.D. ~ Area type: Other 11-11-92 Aq PEAK Cmanent: WP/RYSAq 2010 tlITN PROJECT; RODE 1397 Easttsnmd ~ Watbmaid ~ dorthbosmd ~ SoutAEo iaui L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ l T R Volumes ~ 677 <04~ 188 966 ~ 123 67~ Lorce tlidth ~ 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 X12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~~ 0~ 0) 0~ Sigrol Oparotions Phoae eombirotion 1 2 3 b ~ S 6 7 8 EB Left ~qB left ° Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right ° Peds ~ Pcda tl8 Left ° ~ ~sB Loft Thru ° ~ Thru Right ~ Right Peck ~ Pods RB Right ~ ~E8 Right SB Right ~H8 Right . Green SOA ~ ~Graon 22A Yellow/A-R 4 ~Ymlloa/A-R 4 Lost Time 3.0 O ~LOat Titz 3.0 Cyele Length: 80 sees Phoae eo~inat ian ordsr: 01 g Interoxtion Perfort~nee Sumt7ry Lone Group: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approa ch: gvmts Cap Floe Rotio Rotio Delay LOS Doloy LOS EB T 5346 3408 0.23 0.64 4.0 A 4.4 A R 1409 898 0.67 0.64 5.1 B tlB L 360 Z30 0.86 O.bC 27.< D 7.8 B T 5346 3408 0.33 O.bG 4.3 A qB L 1515 <36 0.30 0.29 17.0 C 15.8 C R 1515 436 0.16 0.29 13.0 0 I nterseet ion Deloy = 6.9 lax/veh) Interoxtion lOS a B O NCN: SIGNAL IZID INTERSECTTO`J SLC9lART Center For Nieroconputers In Transportation v°mvvmsaavamnaa®°vveamomoaavvvnnmvaa°evmuavvomm®®mvov~ Streets: 1E-N) NINCNESTER RD Td-S) REGIONAL CTR. DRIVE Molyct: pAS File Nape: 1397PNNP.XC9 I.D. 4 Arco Type: Other 11-11-92 Pp PEAK Cotaaent: CNP/RVSAN 2010 NITN PROJECT; am BODE 1397 maowmo:°vaavem®m=®em I Eostbaa+d 1 ueatbound 1 dorthbouaid I Southbound I L T R I L T __ _ _ R I L T R I L T R -"- --_. ____ ._ _^_ . .. _ __._ 3 do. Laces i.___ _3 _ _;_.L; ' ' ' I Voluaaxs 1 691 <761 213 1017 1 262 661 Luna Hidth 1 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.01 RTDR vole 1 DI DI DI 3ignel oparetiona Phone coabinetion 1 2 3 < 1 S 6 7 8 E8 left 1 N8 Left ° Thru ° 1 Thru Right ° 1 Right ° Pods ~ 1 Pads uB Left ° 1 5g left Thru ° 1 Thru Right 1 Right Peds ~ 1 Pads N8 Right 1E8 Right SB Right 1Fw Right Green S6A 1Green 18A Tellou/A-R 4 lyellau/A-R 6 Lost Tram 3.0 float rise 3.0 Cycle Lergth: 80 secs Phose eoabino tion order: 01 G3 Intersection Performarxe Summry Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c 8/c ADtxoadu Nwrcs Cap Flau Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Doloy LOS EB T 5366 3675 0.22 0.69 3.0 A 3.3 A R 1609 969 0.65 0.69 3.9 A Ng L 333 229 0.98 0.69 69.0 E 10.6 B T 5366 3675 0.32 0.69 3.3 A NB L 1515 360 0.77 0.26 28.2 D 25.7 D R 1515 360 0.19 0.26 15.7 C Inteneetien Deloy = 9.3 <ses/veA) Intersxtion LOS o B O O O XW: SIOdAL12ED IBTERSECT IOS AC^IART center For dierocmnputan in Tronsport0tion O Streets: (E•tl) tlIRCXESTER RD (d-S HEGI09AL cEdTER RD anolyst: ERIC LRIDERlAOp Ftle dose: 1988AFglP.RC9 I.D. 5 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 Ap PEAK Coaaant: W7/R IVSAd 2010 tlITR PROJECT; BODE 1988 EostEowd ~ Heattwund ~ dorthbaund I Southbasmd L T R ~ L T R I L T R I L T R do. Jonas ~ i 3 1 ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 t c Volumec ~ 33 629 83~ 2 1132 29~ 13 3 2~ 9 2 9 Lane tlidtn ~1z.o 1z.o 1o.olu.o u.o 1o.o~lz.o u.o u.o~u.o 1z.o sTDR vole ~ of of o~ o Sigrol opzrotions Phase cmbination 1 2 3 6 1 S 6 7 8 EB Left ° ~d8 Left ° Thru ° ~ Tnru ° Right ° ~ Right ° Peck ° ~ Pads ° FA1 Lett ° ISB Left ° Thru ° ~ Thnu ° Right ° ~ Right ° Peck ° I Peck ° d8 Right ° IEB Right ° SB Right ~ IL'8 Right Green 7A 27A IGraen itA 29A Yellow/A-R 4 4 lyalloa/A-R 6 6 O Lost Time 3.0 3.0 host Tim 3.0 3.0 Cyele Length: 90 sees Phase eoabinetion order: pi p2 GS pb Interseetion Perforcme Sumamry lane Group: AdI Sot v/e 8/e Approoeh: pvmts Cap Flog Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Deloy LOS EB L 1693 150 0.23 0.09 29.1 D 15.9 C T 5366 1663 O.K 0.31 16.1 C R 1609 626 0.16 O.K 9.6 B NB L 1693 150 0.01 0.09 28.6 D 19.7 C T 5366 1663 0.79 0.31 19.8 C R 1609 638 0.07 0.31 16.1 B Re L 1693 226 O.Q6 0.13 25.9 D 22.2 C T 1782 596 0.01 0.33 12.9 B R 1515 660 0.00 O.i2 9.7 B sB t 1693 21b 0.06 0.13 25.8 D 18.8 C TR 1563 521 0.02 0.33 13.0 B Intersection Deley = 18.3 (ax/veh) Interoection LOS = C O NQ1: SI WlALI2ED INTERSECTION SUNf7ART Center For pieroeoaQutora ]n Tronsporiotion O ®asssssssvaamvvvsssm °°°°°°m°varmm°°°m°°°° Streets: (E-d) )11NCNESTER RD (d-S) REGIONAL CENTES RD Analyst: ERIC UMDERklOOD File dome: 1988pdNF.NN ' D 5 Arco Typa: Other . . 10-28-92 Fd FEAK Comment: Oli/RIVSAd 2010 HITN PROJECT ; BODE 1988 vvvmasmvvsavmmavvvavvvvvmsvmmv ®vmav maaanamvvvvmvm Eostbaaid ~ tbethovtd ~ dorthboiaid ~ Southhoiauf L T R ~ L T R~ ~ L T R ~ L T R qo. Lanes ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 1< Volumes ~ 40 681 87~ 1 1180 31~ 27 2 1~ t2 1 6 Loan didth X12.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 R70A Vols ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0 Sigrol Oparotiona phase cosbinetian 1 2 3 4 ~ S 6 7 8 EB Left ° ~d8 Left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° . Ri pht ° ~ Right ° Veda ° I pis ' kR1 Left ° ~SB Left ° Thru ° ~ ~Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° peds ° ~ peds ° dB Right ° ~EB Right ° se Right ~dB sight Green iDA 26A Green 12A 25A Yellow/A-R 4 4 ~Tellon/A-s 4 S ~ Lost TiaK 3.0 3.0 ~Loet Tuna 3.0 3.0 O Cycle length: 90 sece phase combination order: O1 02 G3 CVi Intersection Perfonmorxe Summery Lane Group: Adl Sot v/e p/e Approoeh: pvmts Cap Flotl Rotio Rotio Deloy LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 207 0.20 0.12 27.1 D 16.6 C T 5346 1606 0.49 0.30 16.9 C R 1409 626 0.15 0.44 ~ 9.6 B NR L 1693 207 0.00 0.12 26.4 D 21.8 C T 5346 1604 0.85 0.30 21.9 C R 1409 423 0.08 0.30 14.6 R q8 l 1693 245 0.11 0.14 25.5 0 24.2 C T 1782 535 0.00 0.30 14.3 B R 1515 640 0.00 O.G2 9.7 B SB L 1693 245 0.05 0.14 25.2 D 21.4 C iR 1552 466 0.02 0.30 14.3 B Intersection Delay ° 19.8 (set/veh) Intersection LOS a 0 O XCW: SIGdALIZFD IdTERSFtTIOd S1J~ARY Cent¢r For pieroetaoWte rs In TrorLSportotion O sas°r_:va° Streets: (E -d) HIdCXESTER RD (d-S) MARGARITA RD Anolyct: ER 1C UXDERFlOOD File dcae: 2154ANdP.NC9 '_D. s Aree type: Other 10"~"~ ~ DEAK Coanent: CND/RIVSAN 2010 HITN DROJECT ; 400E 2154 ~~® Eosthmad ~ daetbound ~ dorthtroig+d ~ Southbo+ard L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R do. Loris ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 volrmes ~ 47 <71 181 240 850 101 1<7 1<1 100 66 216 164 Lane Hidth X12.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 8.0 RTOR Volc ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ O Si gral Operations Dhase eombi nat ion 1 2 3 4 ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Left ° ~ dB Left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° DedS ° ~ Dods ° F!B left ° ~ SB Lett ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° . Dads ° ~ Deds ° d8 Right ° ~ Eg Right ° SB Right ° (k~ Right Green 20A ZOA ~Graen t4A 30A Yellow/A-R 4 4 ~Telloe/A-R < 4 Lost lime O 3.0 3.0 ~LOat Tien 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sees Dhoae eacbinetirm order: 41 02 45 C6 Intersection Derforonnce Summary Lane Group: Adj Sot v/e 8/e Appraoeh: Nvmtc Cop Flou Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ES L 1693 356 0.14 0.21 24.4 C 20.6 C T 5346 1123 0.42 0.21 22.3 c R 1409 507 0.38 0.36 15.5 C F1B L 1695 356 0.71 0.21 32.< D 29.5 0 T 5346 1123 0.88 0.21 29.6 D R 1409 2% 0.36 0.21 22.1 C qg L 1693 254 0.61 0.15 33.2 D 20.5 C" T 3564 1105 0.14 0.31 16.1 C R 1318 685 0.15 0.52 8.1 B SS L 1643 254 0.27 0.15 28.8 D 15.< C T 3564 1105 0.21 0.31 16.5 C R 1318 685 0.25 0.52 8.6 B Intersection Delay = 23.8 (see/veil) Intersection l05 = C O MCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSEtt10S SU~IART Center For pierocaip+tars In Trormportotion O vvaaaaavaaavvaavvavmaaavvavavaavaaavavvavaaveaaaaav°°°°°m°°av°°°°oaee Streets: (E•d) NINCXESTER RD (N-S) NARWRITA RD prolyst: ERIC UXDER1100D file Nana: 215<PNUP.XC9 '.D. 6 Areo Type: Other 10"28'92 Pli PEAK Comment: CXP/RI9SAN ZD10 F)ITX PROJECT; NODE 2754 vaaaamvaaasvavvvavavava Eoatbwaid ~ Nestboia~d ~ dorthEaa~d ~ Southbo~aid L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R do. Lanes ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 3 1 ~ 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 Voluman ~ 93 <0< 197 259 857 11<~ 17i 238 111 76 267 180 Luna Nidth 12.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 8.0 RTOA Vols ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0 Sigrol Operotionc Phoae eombirotion 1 2 3 < ~ S 6 7 8 EB Left ° ~NB Left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° Peds ° ~ Peck ° F18 Left ° ~SB Loft ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° . Right ° ~ Right ° Peds ° ~ Peds ° NB Right ° DEB Right ° SB Right ° ~FR) Right Green 20A 20A ~Orean 1<A 30A Tenon/A-R < < ~TOlloa/A-R < 6 O Loct Tima 3.0 3.0 ~LOat Tim 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sees Phase emabirotion order: O1 O2 OS Od Intersection Perforamnee Stanmry Lane Group: Adl Sot v/c g/c Approoeh: pvmts Cap Floe Retie Rotio Delay LOS Daley LOS EB L 1693 356 0.28 0.21 25.3 D 20.9 C T 5346 1123 0.42 0.21 22.2 C R 1409 507 O.G1 0.36 15.8 C F!B L 1693 356 0.77 0.21 34.9 D 30.3 D T 5346 1123 0.88 0.21 30.0 D R 1409 2% 0.41 0.21 22.5 C NB L 1693 254 0.72 0.15 37.2 D 21.6 C T 3566 1105 0.24 0.31 16.6 C R 1318 685 0.17 0.52 8.2 e SB L 1693 254 0.32 0.15 29.1 D 15.8 C T 3566 1105 0.27 0.31 16.8 C R 1318 685 0.28 0.52 8.7 B Intersection Delay ° 24.1 (sec/veh) lnteraeetion LOS a C O RC1: SIGRALIZED IRTERSECTI05 SIFdaRT Center For dicroeosQuters !n Transportat ion O ssavsasmssavicemmemasesaawsoas°°°°°°°°~s°° Streets: (E-FI) tlICOIAS RD <d-S) NIgCRESTER RD Anelydt: ERIC iRIDERHORD File drss: 3726At;'.w.XC9 ' D 7 Aree type: Other 10.28-92 AH PEAK . . Coement: CqP/RIVSAd 2010 F11TX PRO.IECT; BODE 5726 voaaae°° Eaatbo~md ~ lbsthoimd ~ dorthbao~d ~ fiotRhbmm d L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ l T ............ . .. __.. . ____ ___- - • R ___ _ I I__._ ..._ .._ ~ ___ ~ do. Larros ~ ~ 2 i ~ 3 1 ~ 1 3 Volumec ~ ~ bB 100 509 18~ 36 1017 lane Nidth ~ X12.0 12.0 12.0 11.012.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ ~ 0~ 0~ 0 Signot Oparotians Phase combination 1 2 3 < ~ S 6 7 8 EB Left ~d8 Left Thru ~ Thru ° Right ~ Right ° Pads ~ Pads t18 Left ° ~SB Left ° Thru ~ ThrY ° Right ° ~ Right Pads ~ Pads dB Right ~ DEB Right SB Right ~e8 Right Green 20A ~Graen 52A O Yellw/A-R 6 ~Yalloy/A-R b Lost lime 3.0 ~LOat Ticx 3.0 CYC Ie Length: 80 aeec Phase co~i nation ondar: 01 g Interaeetion Perfor~xe Suaonry Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/c Approac h: pvmts Cap Floe Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Daloy LOS F10 L 2673 702 0.08 0.26 16.9 C 15.8 C R 1515 39H 0.26 0.26 15.2 C RB T 5366 3562 0.17 0.66 3.3 A 3.3 A R 1669 9T5 0.02 0.66 3.0 a SB L 922 611 0.06 0.86 3.6 A 3.8 A T 5366 3542 0.33 0.66 3.8 a l nterseetion Detoy ° 4.6 (ax/ve11) ]nteraection LOS ° A O NRi: SIGNALIZED IIRERSECT10d SLl~ARY Curter For dieroeonputers In Tronsportation vvnvvnvvannnvannvwvannvemnwnvvvvanvvvvava vman=vv~vvvmvvaannvmnvv Streett: (E-U) NICOLAS RD (N-S) F1INCNESTER RD Analyst: ERIC UIIDERFAOD File Ntm2: 3726Paw.NC9 I.D. 7 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 Pp PEAK Comment: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 HITN PROJECT; BODE 3726 v®vvv °° vva®vvvnvv®newvnnv I Eoatbo~md ~ Noatboiaui ~ dorthbo~ad ~ Southbo~a~d L T R I L T ~•__ R I L T R I l T R _....... .._.I. _....__ _•_• __-_ ~_•__ _•_• •__•~____ do. lanes ~ ~ 2 ~ 1 ~ 3 1 ~ 1 3 Volumes ~ ~ 57 89I 9GG 17GI 26 957 Lane Nidth ~ X12.0 12.0 72.0 T).0~12.0 12.0 RTOR Vo is ~ ~ 0~ 0~ - 0 Si gro l Operot i ona Phase combination 1 2 3 G ~ 5 6 7 B EB Left ~ N8 Left Thru I Thru ° Right ~ Right ° Pads ~ Peck UB Left ° ~ SB Loft ° Thru I TAru ° Right ° ~ Right Peels I Peels qg Right DEB Right SB Right IN8 Right Green 20A IGroan 52A Yellow/A-R G ~TOIIoN/A-R G Lont Time 3.0 ~Leat Tisx 3.0 Cycle LengM: 80 sees Phose combiration ordar: O1 05 lnterseetion Perfo~amneo Sueamry Lane Group: Adz Sot v/e g/c Approoch: pvmts Cap FIoN Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS NB l 2675 702 0.09 0.26 16.9 C 15.8 C R 7515 398 0.2< 0.26 15.0 c qg T 5346 3562 0.31 0.66 3.7 A 3.7 A R 1169 973 0.19 0.66 S.G A SB L 324 215 0.13 0.66 3.8 A 3.7 A T 5346 3562 0.37 0.66 3.7 A Intersection Delay ° G.G (ox/vah) lnteroeetion LOS n A O O O XCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSERIOR SUGARY O Center for pierxmr®uterc in Trormportot ian vvvvvvvvsvvvvvvaavavonasavvaanaaa Streetc: 1E-Fl) lS1RRIETA NOT SiRIRGS 1N-S) FII NCXESTER RD Aro lyst: ERIC lR0)ERU00p Fil¢ dt:s: 3517AtRlP.XC9 '.D. 8 Are¢ Type: Other 10-28-92 Ap TEAK Comesnt: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 HITN %IOJECT; NODE 3517 vvvavvvvsavcvavanvvv Eacthorau! ~ tl¢st6ound ~ dorthtto~d ~ Southt~ L T R ~ L T R ~ l T R ~ L T @ N°. Lanes ~ 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 ~ i 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 Volwras ~ 1s6 327 71~ 12 660 140 65 316 12~ 81 227 163 Lars Vidth X12.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.0 RTOR Volc ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ O Sigrol Oparotiono VAose eoabirotion 1 2 3 6 ~ S 6 7 8 EB Left ° BNB Laft ' ° Thru ° ~ thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° G¢ds ° ~ Fcdc ° NB Left ° ~SB left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° RS Bht ° ~ Right ° pads ° ~ Gadc ° NB Right DEB Right SB Right ~e8 Right Green 11A 21A ~Drven 12A 20A O Tellou/A-R < < ~TOlloa/A•R 6 6 Loet Tiara 3.0 3.0 ~LoBt Tice 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 aeu ihaae emrbirntion order: Ot 02 g Cb I nteroaetion ierfon~nee Sumory Lane Graff: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approoeh: Nvmtc Cop Floa Rotio Rotio Deloy LOS Daloy LOS EB L 1643 254 0.65 0.15 28.2 D 18.7 C T 3564 980 0.37 0.28 15.2 C R 1318 362 0.21 0.28 14.6 B UB L 1693 254 0.05 0.15 22.1 C 18.6 C T 3564 980 0.76 0.28 18.9 C R 1318 362 O.i1 0.28 15.6 C RB L 1643 275 0.25 O. t6 22.3 C 16.7 C 7 3564 436 0.37 0.26 15.7 C R 14D9 370 0.04 0.26 14.2 B SB L 1693 ~ Z75 0.31 0.16 22.7 C 16.9 C T 3564 936 0.27 0.26 15.2 C R 1409 370 0.47 0.26 16.6 C I ntercectim Deloy ° _17.9 twee/v¢h> Int¢roeetion LOS ° C O NW: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLF7MARY Curter For Nierocaiputers In Transportotion O ssvaa:sasaaassvvvssaavsasssasavsvvsavvvaamavvvaaavsvvvvvsvassvssswas Streets: (E-d) )RIRRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N-S) dINCNESTER RD pnolyct: ERIC UNDERd000 File Nana: 3517PNdP.NC9 I.D- 8 Areo Type: Other 11-16-92 Pp PEAK Comment: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 diTN PROJECT; NODE 3517 vmassasasaaaavaasassasvvv Eestbo~md ~ deatbo~afd ~ Northbo~aal ~ SouthCo~aid l T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R I_.__ ___. __..I_--. .... .___I-... _._. -__.'..._ __-...._ qo. Lanes ~ 1 2 i ~ 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 ~ 1 2 1 val ones ~ zoo bs6 36~ 23 633 use a7 385 20~ zot 479 ss1 Lanz d;eth ~1z.o 1z.o a.o~12.0 1z.o e.o~lz.o u.o 1o.o~lz.o u.o 10.0 RroR volt ~ o) o~ o~ o ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signol operati ma Phase earbinetion 1 2 3 4 ~ 5 6 7 8 E8 Left ° ~NB left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Rieht ° ~ Right ° Pads ° ~ Pads ° dB Left ° ~58 Left ° Thru ° ~ Thru ° Right ° ~ Right ° Pads ° ~ Pedt ° NB Right ~EB Right SB Right ~d8 Right Greco 17A 19AGreen 12A 16A O yellow/A-R 4 4 ~Yello~/A-R 4 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ~LOSt Tima 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phose eo~irotion order: O1 02 OS C6 I nterseetion Performance Swnnry Lane Group: Adj Sot v/c g/e Approach: Nvmts Cap Flou Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 381 0.55 0.22 22.2 C 21.6 C T 3566 891 0.81 0.25 21.8 C R 1318 330 0.12 0.25 15.0 R dB L 1693 381 0.06 0.22 18.5 C 20.1 C T 3564 891 0.78 0.25 20.8 C R 1318 330 0.46 O.ZS 17.1 C NB L 1693 275 0.33 0.16 22.8 C 19.4 C T 3564 757 0.56 0.21 18.8 C R 1409 299 0.07 0.21 16.3 C sg L 1695 275 0.78 0.16 33.6 D 27.0 D T 3564 757 0.70 0.21 20.5 C R 1409 299 0.88 0.21 34.5 D Intersection Delay • 22.5 (sec/veh) Inteneetion LOS = C O RCq: SIGdAlT2ED IdTERSECT10:1 SU.S(ART /~\ Cmter for pierocoetouters In irnnsportat ion /\ vasassassass°szavvsaaaam°asvaav°a°a°v°aaaa°a°aaaaaaaavv°avmmm i\ amvvv `/ Streets: (E•d) RABCRO f:ALIF. RD (d-S) I-15 'SB RApPT Analyst: dAS File dose: 5095Ad)W .NC9 Area type: Dther 11-9-92 AH PEAK Comment: CqP/RIVSAd 2070 HTTB PROJECT; BODE 5095 vsavvvaavcaavva°v°°v° EastEormd ~ Heatbormd ~ dorth6ormd ~ Southbo~ard L T R ~ l T R ~ L T R ~ L T .__ .__. ~.._. ____ _ . R ___. ~-__. __._ ._..I____ _.-' -- do. Lances ~ 2< ~ 1 2 -_~_ _ _ ~ ~ 2 1 Volunces ~ 2% 216 285 768 ~ ~ 21 118 Lerce Hidth ~ 12.0 X12.0 12.0 ~ X12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ~ 0~ 0~ I O I.D. 9 Sierol Operations Phase emrbirotion i 2 S < ~ 5 6 7 8 .EB Left ~d8 Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peels ~ Pads FJB Left ° ~SB Left ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru R ipht ~ Right ° Peels ~ Peels RB Right ~EB Right SB Right ~ Iii Right Green 20A 180. ~Graen 20A Tellow/A-R < < ~yallm,/A-R b Lost Time O 3.0 3.0 ~LOSt Tine 3.0 Cycle Lmpth: 70 sees Phase coabirotian order: R1 02 g Intersection Performance Sramrry Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/e Approoeh: Mvmts Cop flm Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Deloy LOS EB TR 3339 906 0.62 0.27 15.3 C 15.3 C de t 1693 508 0.59 0.30 17.2 C 7.8 B T 356< 2189 0.39 0.61 <.5 A SB L 2673 802 0.03 0.30 13.1 B 12.3 B R 1515 <55 0.27 0.30 12.1 B Intersection Delay a 10.< (sec/veh) InteraeCt ian LOS ° B O XCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSELTION SIFeNRi Center For Nicrxaiputers In Transportation O - - naesssssssasaassassasaasaaaessaasaann°aaanna°°°^^"""-"-saasse°s ?sea° Streets: (E-d) RANCXO CAllf. RD (N-S) 1-15 SB RANPS Analyst: pA5 File Name: 5095PpFIP.NC9 9 ~ ~ Area Type: Other 11-9.92 P(7 PEAK ' ' Convent: CNP/RIYSAN 2010 HITN PROJECT; NODE 5095 saaasssvsa°s°amv°°~s°avnvmmssassa°aaaanmv Eostbow+d ~ Hestbound ~ gorthboiaid ~ Southlwtmd L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R No. Lines ~ 2< ~ 1 2 ~ ~ 2 1 Volumes ~ 558 744 404 712 ~ ~ ~ 192 158 Lone Hidth ~ 72.0 X12.0 12.0 ~ X12.0 12.0 R70R Vols ~ 0~ 0~ ~ 0 Signal Operotians Phase eosbinetion 1 2 3 4 ~ 5 6 7 8 E8 Left ~NB Left - - Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peels ~ Pads N8 Left ° ~SB Left ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru Right ~ Right ° Pads ~ Pads . NB Right DEB Right 58 Right ~Ng Right Green 24A 34A Green 10A Tel loe/A-R 4 4 ~Tellou/A-R 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ~LOSt Tima 3.0 O Cycle Length: 80 sees Phase combination order: O1 02 OS Intersection Performance Sumaary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g!e Approach: Mvmts Cap Floe Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS Eg TR 3259 1426 1.01 O.i4 31.9 D 31.9 D YS L 7693 529 0.80 0.31 25.2 D 9.8 8 T 3564 2807 0.28 0.79 1.5 A SB L 2673 368 0.56 0.14 26.2 D 29.0 D R 1515 208 0.80 0.14 32.5 D Intersection Daley = 22.7 (see/veh) Intersection l05 ° C O MCM: SI WIALIZED INTERSELTIOa SlCBNRT Center for dierocoaputera In Transportation O 6i~LYimm66°°°°°C®°°m6O m°°Cm°°°Ymm°m°°°ECmmm°vv Streetc: (E-H> RANCMD CALif. RD fR•s) 1-15 dB RAdiS rwtns: aAS File drse: 5099AnFW.Nt9 I.D. 10 Area type: Other 11-9-92 AN PEAK Comment: CpP/RIVBAH 2070 HITM pROJEtt; BODE 5099 mvmvmavvvmvv Eoatbo~a~d ~ Fbathound ~ dorthbound ~ f ¢trthbound L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R do. Lenec ~ 7 2 ~ 2< ~ 1 7 Volumes ~ 83 236 ~ 657 239 3% 363 _ Lwx Nidth X12.0 12.0 ~ 72.0 X12.0 12.0 RTDR vats ~ of of of Signal Oparatioro chose eombirotion 1 2 3 b ~ ~ S 6 7 8 EB Left ° ~ d8 Left ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru Right ~ Right ° peels ~ Veda k1B Lett ~SB Laft Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peck ~ p¢dc NB Right DEB Right cg Right ~ts8 Right Green 20A 25A ~Graen 23A Telloa/A-R 6 6 ~T¢l lay/A•R 6 O Lost Tice 3.0 3.0 ~LOat Tics 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 aeec Yhaae eesatirotion order: 01 02 US Interaeet ion perfortmnee Sum©ry lane Group: AdJ sat v/e B/e Approach: Nvmts Cap flea Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOB EB l 1643 666 0.2D 0.26 17.5 C 7.3 B T 3564 2228 0.72 0.63 3.9 A NB TR 3620 7172 0.89 0.32 22.2 C 22.2 c NB L 1515 <55 0.92 0.30 37.3 0 30.3 D R 1515 655 0.79 0.30 22.1 C Intersection Delay ° 22.8 (aec/veh) lnteraett ion LOS ° C O ' xQi: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION StA81ART Curter for Nierocoaputera in Transportation °L°°°°iII6666°°°O°°~Q°d°°°~6°°°66®Y°IIO°Y6O6EII°D066°CYII°YC°OIIO°06 Streets: (E-d) RANCNO CALIF. RD (N-5) 1-15 NB RANPS IW lyst: NAS Flle Nrme: s098PNNP.xt9 I.D. 10 Area Type: Other 11'9-92 ~ PEAK Comment: CNP/RIVSAN 2070 UITN PROJECT; NODE 5098 v.°°a.m°aaa~aa.asvaseam=vam= Eecttw~md ~ Flestbotaid ~ NorthEo~a~d 1 sanhbolald 1 L T R i L T R I L T R i L T s No. Loney ~ 1 2 ~ 2~ 1 1 T I vollanas ~ 40 709 ~ 796 1621 320 5591 Lane Nidth 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.01 RTOA Vols 1 01 01 01 . SigrFal Operations Phose carbination 1 2 3 G 1 ~ 5 6 7 B EB Left ° 1NB Left ° Thru ° ° 1 Thru Right 1 Right ° Peels 1 Pads FIB Left 158 Loft Thru ° 1 Thru Right ° 1 Right Peels 1 Peda q8 Right 1EB Right SB Righ[ 1H8 Right Green 13A 25A 1Green 30A Tel lou/A•R 4 G 1Tallou/A-R G Lost Tinm 3.0 3.0 1LOSt Tis¢ 3.0 Cycle LengtA: 80 acts Phose eollbiMitan order: C1 02 OS Intersection Performance SFam~ery Lane Group: Adj Set v/c B/e Approoch: Nvmts Cep Flou Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Deloy LOS EB L 1693 296 0.14 0.77 21.2 C 7.9 B 7 3564 1916 O.G1 0.54 7.2 B FB TR 3473 1129 0.94 0.32 25.9 D 25.9 D NB L 1515 587 0.57 0.39 15.7 C 31.4 D R 1515 s87 1.00 0.39 40.5 E Intersection Deloy = 22.4 (see/veh> Interaeetfon l05 ° C O O O XW: SIGRALI2ED IdTERSELTI0:1 S1l~ARY Center For 1lieroemiputers !n Transport¢tian O :~m~e: Streets: (E-F)) 191RRIETA NOT SPR IROS (d-S) l-15 SB OApPS Arolyst: pas File dcsm: so89AlaP.xw I.D. 11 Area Type: Other it-13-92 Ap PEAK Comment: RiP/R IVBAN 2010 HITN PROJECT Eostboiand ~ H¢atbonand ~ dertAbolaid ~ fouthbata+d L T R ~ L T . .. . R ~ L T R ~ L T R .. .... . . .. .... .... .... ... ~ da. Lanes i -- •'_• .;..i.;.. i ; ; i Volumes ~ 192 38~ i 367 ~ ~ 160 35 Lane Flidth ~ 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 ~ X12.0 12.0 R70R Vols ~ 0~ 0~ ~ 0 Sigrol Operotimm Phase eosbirotion 1 2 3 4 ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Left ~dB L¢tt Thru ° ~ TAN Right ° ~ Right Pads I l>~ UB Left ° ~SB L¢ft ~O Thru ° ° ~ Thru a;ght ~ Right ° Peds ° ° ~ Pads dB Right ~EB Right SB Right ~~ Right Green 6A 20A ~Oroan 32A Tellow/A-R < 6 ~yalloa/A-R 6 Lost Tiara 3.0 3.0 O ~LOSt Tires 3.0 Cycle Length: 7b sees Phase combination order: O1 02 g l nteroeetion Perfonvrxe Summery Lane Group: Adj Sat v/C g/c Approoeh: gvmts Cap Floa Rotio 9otio Deloy l05 Deloy LOS EB T 1782 535 0.38 0.30 12.7 B 12.5 B R 1515 455 0.09 0.30 11.4 B Eg L 1693 169 0.02 0.10 21.6 C 9.4 B T 1782 789 O.i9 O.bi 9.3 B SB L 1515 71G 0.2G 0.47 B.G B 8.0 B R 1515 71i 0.05 O.G7 6.5 B l ntersect ion Deloy ° 10.0 (ace/veh) IMeroeetion lO2 o B O MOI: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 511:°(ARY ' Center for picroeoeputers In TrpmpOrtot ian O ~..:°:__ Streets: (E-tl) KURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (d-S) 1-15 SB RAdPS Aro lyst: pA5 File dtme: 5089PpdP.NC9 I.D. 11 Area Type: Other 11-13-92 Pd PEAK Covnxnt: CNP/RIVBAN 2010 NITN PROJECT ~ Eostbma~d I ileatbotmd ~ donhbo~a+d ~ southbo~ad L T R ~ l T R I L T R I L T R do. Lones ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 volumes ~ 469 s<~ 7 483 ~ I <77 lz Lane F/idth I lz.o u.olu.o u.o I ~u.o tz.D RiOR Volc ~ 0~ OI ~ 0 Sigrol Oparotioro Phose combination 1 2 3 i t 5 6 7 8 EB Left ode Left Thru ° ( Thru Right ° ~ Right Pads I Pads uB Left ° ~58 Lett ° Thru ° ° I Thru Right ° ~ Right ° Peels ° ° ~ Pads dB Right IEB Right SB Right IN8 Right Green 6A 21A IGraen 31A Tellou/A-R 4 4 ~yalloa/A-R < Lost Tien 3.0 3.0 ~Loat Tian 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sees Phose eombiration ordar: O) 02 G3 Intersection Perforatuxe S~sneary Lsne Groff: Adl Sot v/c g/e Approoeh: pvmts Cap ilon Ratio Rotio Deloy LOS Deloy LOS EB T 1782 560 0.88 0.31 23.8 C 22.5 C R 1515 <76 0.12 0.31 11.1 B FB L 1693 169 0.04 0.10 21.6 C 10.6 B T 1782 815 0.62 0.46 10.2 B 58 L 1515 693 ~ 0.72 0.46 1<.< B 14.2 B R 1515 693 0.02 0.46 6.7 B intersection Deloy ~ 15.8 (see/veh) interoeetion LOS = C O O XCd: SIGXALIZED IRTERSELTI0.Y SIC~iART Center For dicroeoaputera In Trarsportotion aaavassssavaa~savveasassvav°vvvasv°v®aaq°°~°°°~°°°a~°~~6II6 Streets: (E-Fl) dURRIETA XOT SiRIXGS (d-S) 1-15 dB RAdVS Analyst; pas File dace: SOB8AF91P.XC9 I.D. 12 Aree Type: Other 11"73'92 Ad PEAK Comment: Cdp/RIVSAd 2010 HITX pROJEtt vvaaaaaaev~ I EostboFa~d ~ Hesthound 1 tlorthboFmd ( souchlmFmd 1 l T R 1 L T R 1 L T R I L T R qo. Laros ~ 1 1 7 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volwres ~ 6 344 ~ 338 4371 32 61 Lone Uidth 1u.o 1z.o 1 tz.o 1z.oilz.o u.o1 RTOR Vole 1 01 01 01 Sigrol Op2rotiorFs Phase combination 1 2 3 6 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left ° 1dB left ° Thru ° ° 1 Thru Right 1 Right ° Pads ° 1 pads F1B Lett 1EB Loft Thru ° 1 Thru Right ° 1 Right Geds i Peds Ng Right 1E8 Right SB Right 1d8 Right Green 11A 29A 1Graen 18A Yellw/A-R 4 < 1YOlloa/A-R O Lost Time 3.0 3.0 1Last Tics 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sees phoce eoabiration order: 01 OZ (r3 Intersection perforonee SFOawry Lane Groff: Adj Sat v/e B/e Approoth: Xvmts Cap Flou Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Deloy LOS EB L 1693 290 0.02 0.17 18.3 C 3.9 A T 7782 1746 0.32 0.64 3.7 A FIB T 1782 764 0.47 0.43 9.5 B 11.3 B R 1515 649 0.71 0.43 12.7 B NB L 1515 411 0.08 0.27 1<.4 B tf .1 B R 1515 611 0.01 0.27 12.0 B intersection Deley ° 9.2 (aec/voh) lnteroeetion LOS ° B O XCN: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTI0.'1 SlF^.IART [enter For dieroeomputers In Trorxportot ion amsa:ascavamsaassaaaasvass¢aasssaavvvvamaaaavvasvammaaaassssassem Streets: (E'N) IaIRRiETA NOT SPRINGS (q•S) 1-15 dB RApPS Analyst: qA5 File qca: SOBBPYh)P.NC9 '-D. 1,2 Area Type: Other 11'13'92 Pd PEAK Comment: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 HiTN PROJECT aaavaavvvmavaaavaa®vaea®aaaaavaa® avaaavvaaaoooaeeasaaaa Eestho~aid ~ Flestbo~aid ~ dorthbound ~ southbolald L T R ~ L T ____ _ __ _ .__. R ~ L T R ~ L T R __.. ____ ____ _. __.. _ _. ._ . i ; qo. lanes i ;__ _;__ ; i ; i ; Volumes ~ 31 915 ~ 435 284 56 5~ lone Nidth X12.0 12.0 ~ 12.0 1 2.012.0 12.0 . RTOR Vola ~ 0~ 0~ 0~ Signal Operations Phase eo~ination 1 2 3 < ~ S 6 7 8 EB Left ° ~NB Lett ~ ° Thru ° ° ~ Thru Right ~ Right ° Peds ° ° ~ icds F18 left ~SB Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peels ~ ~ Peels NB Right ~EB Right SB Right ~F)B Right Greco 11A 29A Green 18A Yellw/A-R 4 < ~Tal lay/A-R < Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ~LOSt Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 7D sees Phase eo~i rat ion order: 01 O2 UTi I nteneetian Performxxe Suoimry Lane croup: Adj sat v/c g/e Approach: Nvmts Cap Flou Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 290 0.11 0.17 18.6 C 10.0 B T 1782 1146 0.84 0.64 9.7 B HB 7 1782 764 0.60 0.43 10.8 B 10.3 B R 1515 '649 O.ib 0.43 9.5 8 q8 L 1515 411 0.14 0.27 14.7 B 14.5 B R 1515 411 0.01 0.27 12.0 B Intersection Delay a 10.3 (seC/veh) Intersection LOS = B O O O NCN: SIGNAL I2ED IlITERSECTIOd S1F„^7ARY Center For NieroeosWters In Tronaportatien O azzz:aaaazzaassaaaama maazaaaanaaaaz Streets: <E-H) pURRIETA NOT SPRINGS Td-S) 1-215 SB RApPS Arr lyst: ERIC l1NDERiJOm File dta: 5195ACJ/P.NC9 I.D. 93 Area Type: Other 10'28'92 AN PEAK Cmtsent: CqP/RIVSAN 2010 HITX PROJECT; BODE 5195 aaaaaaa:s ( EastEounO ( lbcttmiaid ( dorthEound ( Southbo~aal L T R ( L T R ~ L T R { L T R No. Lanes ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 Volumes ~ 576 27~ 136 817 { { 163 139 Lane Hidth ~ 12.0 12.0{12.0 12.0 ( {12.D 12.0 RTOR Vols ( 0{ O( { 0 Sigrol tJperstions Phoce coe6inotion 1 2 3 b ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Left {dB Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peck ° ~ P¢d5 NB Left ° {SB L¢ft ° Thru ° ° { Thru Aieht { Right ° Peels ° { PLC ° as Right {EB sight SB Right {E~ Right Green 13A 31A {Gro¢n 26A Telloe/A-R b b {Tallow/A-R b O Lost Time 3.0 3.0 {Coat Tir1 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 secs Ph¢se eombi nat ion ordzr: O1 O2 rf3 Intersection Perfoimrxe Sunumry Lane Group: Adj Set v/c g/e Approabh: flvmts Cap Floe Retio R¢tio Delay LOS Delay l05 EB T 1782 713 0.76 0.<0 16.2 C 15.9 C R 1515 606 0.05 0.60 9.5 B NB L 1693 296 0.68 0.17 23.6 C 11.8 B T 1782 tQ91 0.79 0.61 4.8 B SB L 1515 675 0.32 0.31 16.1 C 16.9 B R 1515 <73 0.31 0.31 13.6 8 Intersection Delay z 13.5 ts¢C/veh) Intersection LOS a B O XC(: SIGMALI2ED idtERSECTIO`J SU"NRY Center For dierotomputers In Trormportotion O uaassusaaaassaaasuusvsaaasaauaaasmaaaaaaaaaaaaaauusaaasaaaassu Streets: (E-d) KURRIETA NOT SPRIROS (d-S) 1-215 SB RApPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERF100D Flle dry: 5195PpUP.XC9 Area type: Other to-28-92 Pp PEAT I.D. 13 Comment: CpP/RlVSAd 2070 HITR PROJECT; BODE 5195 ~ Eastbound ~ Hestbound ~ dorthbout+d ~ Souchbow~d L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R I L T R do. lanes ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 Volumes ~ 1149 69~ 61 873 ~ ~ 105 1z8 LDM Hiath ~ 1z.o 1z.o~lz.o u.o ~ ~u.o u.o RroR vols ~ o~ o~ ~ o Signal Operotiona Phase combination 1 2 3 i( ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Left ~d8 Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peels ° I Pads HB Left ° TSB Left ° Thru ° ° ( Thru Right ( Right ° Pads ? ~ Peels ° d8 Right ~EB Right SB Right IFA Right Green 6A S1A Green 12A Yet lou/A-R 3 6 ~YOllcr/A-R 6 O Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ~Loat Ticz 3.0 Cye le Length: 80 sees Phase eombinatian order: 01 02 OS I nterseetion Perfonmsxe Sumnry Lane Group: Adj Sot v/e g/e Approoeh: dvmts Cap Floe Rotio Rotio Deloy LOS Delay l05 EB T 1782 1158 1.06 0.65 37.3 D 35.4 D R 1575 %5 0.07 0.65 3,3 A Es L 1693 727 0.36 0.08 27,3 D <.9 A T 1782 1359 0.68 0.76 3,6 A SB L 1515 266 0.65 0.16 23,9 C 22.6 C R 1515 266 0.55 0.16 21,6 C Intersection Delay a 22.3 (see/veh) Intersection LOS a C O XCY: S(GNAIIZED IdTERSECTION SLC~ART Center For Nierotosputers In Trartsportdt ion awsu O Streets: (E-F1) t~RIETA N0T SPRINGS (N-S> I-215 d8 RA)IPS Analyst: ERIC tRA)ERFl00D file dra: 5198AIAM.NC9 {'D 14 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 Aq PEAX Coament: CqP/RIVSAN 2010 F11TX PROJECT; BODE S1% { Eostboia+d { Wstbound { dorthbmmd { S outhbound L T R { L T R { L T R { L T R No. Loves { 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1( Volumes ~ 53 606 { 897 42~ 57 56{ Lane Flidth {12.0 12.0 { 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 RTOR Volc ~ 0{ 0{ 0{ Signal Operatiana Phase conbination 1 2 3 6 ~ 5 6 7 8 EB left ° {d8 Left ° Thru ° ° { Thru Right ° { Right ° Pads ° { Pods ° NB left {SH Lett Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ sift Peels ° { P¢ds NB Right {EB Right SB Right {FS8 Right Green 6A 47A {Groan 16A Yellov/A-R 3 4 {T¢lloa/A-R 6 -Lost Time 3.0 3.0 {Loot TiQ 3.0 O Cyele Length: 80 aegis Phase eoabination ocelot: O1 02 A3 Interoeet ion Perforc~nce Suao~ry Lane Group: Adj Sat v/e e/e Approosi.: gvmts Cop Floa Rotio Rotio Deloy LOS D¢loy LOS EB L 1643 127 O.K 0.08 28.5 D 5.6 B T 1782 1270 O.SO 0.71 3.6 A % T 1782 1069 0.88 0.60 1<.2 B 13.7 B R 1515 909 0.05 0.60 4.3 A NB L 1515 322 0.19 0.21 19.7 C 18.2 C R 1315 322 0.18 0.21 16.7 C Intersection Deldy a 10.9 (ax/veh) Interoeetion l05 ° B O NCn: SIGRALI2ED IRTERSECTI ON SLCti7ARY Center For Microcomputers in Transportation O ssessasascssaasvssasssmasssanm~sssssseeesnssessavsssssssssssssasssss Streets: (E-F1) iQ1RRIETA NOT SPRIMGS (d-S) I-215 RB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC LR)DERFKIOD file Mcae: 5198PMHP.NC9 ' D 1~ Aree Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 F1(TM PROJECT; BODE 5198 Eostbmaid ~ tieatlmund ~ dorthmund ~ southbound L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R ~ L T R do. Larrx ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ Volumas ~ 115 1139 ~ 827 32~ 87 2i2~ Lorce HidtA ~u.o u.o ~ u.o 1z.o~t2.o tt.o~ RTOA Volt ~ 0~ 0) 0~ S i erol Operoti o1m Phase combination 1 2 3 b ~ 5 6 7 8 EB Lett ° ~MB Left ° Thru ° ° ~ ThrY Right ° ~ Right ° Peda ° ~ Pads ° FR) Left ~SB Left Thru ° ~ Thru Right ° ~ Right Peels ° ~ Peels M8 Right ~W Right SB Rieht ~FA) Right Green 13A GOA Green 16A Yellow/A-R 3 < ~Yelloa/A-R b Lost Time 3.0 3.0Lost Tiee 3.0 Cycle Length; 80 secs Phase eoamirotion order: 01 02 g Intersection Perfonaunee Summry Lane Group: Adj Sot v/e 8/e Approoeh: Mvmts Cap Floc Rotio ROtiO Delay LDS Doloy LOB EB L 1693 275 0.66 0.16 23.7 C 16.1 C T 1782 1270 0.96 0.71 15.3 C {fl1 T 1782 913 0.95 0.51 2<.2 C 23.5 C R 1515 776 0.06 0.51 6.3 B RB L 1515 322 0.29 0.21 20.2 C 26.9 C R 1515 322 0.79 0.21 26.6 D Interseetim Delay ~ 19.9 (acs/veh) Interaaet ien LOS ° C O 0 ~~~ ~~~~~~~, Il~~ 0 0 O ~~sow ®~6e~~~ ~+~~r 8or ~~rrt~os @9er~les ~e9~ ~e V~aE~uecan8~ 68egia®ea~B Ceetger ~~c84Bc (~S~rae For: O Bedford ®evelopmen4 Company 28765 Single Oak Drive Suite 200 Temecula, Cal'rfomia 92590 By: PdBS/Louvry Engineers and Planners 40925 County Center Drive Suite 120 Temecula, CA 92591 December 4, 1992 R76-090.118 ENGINEERS 8 PEANNERS O o ~~~~el~~o~~ Introduction History of Watershed ........................................................................... Basis for Study ........................................................................... General Considerations Project Description ........................................................................... Campos Verdes ............................................................. Temecula Regional Center ............................................................ Watershed Description ........................................................................... Existing Drainage Facilities ..............:.............................................. Methodology Hydrology ........................................................................... Hydraulics ........................................................................... Design Criteria ........................................................................... System Proposal O System Description ........................................................................... Floodplain Impacts Introduction ............................................................................ Federal Emergency Management Agency .............................................. Lake Skinner Dam Break ........................................................................ Assessment District 161 .......................................................................... Environmental Considerations PJational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ................................... Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................... Technical Appendix Appenditt I Hydrology Calculations Appendix II Hydraulic Calculations 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 6 6 7 B 12 12 12 13 13 15 O i Exhibits Location NNap Study Limits of Previous Reports Drainage Basin Existing Drainage Facilities Existing Downstream Drainage Facilities Hydrology NAap Area Tributary to Park/Detention Basin Proposed Park/Detention Basin Hydrology fihap Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Proposed Drainage Facilities 100 Year Flood O Exhibit Pvo. 1 1.1 2 3 3.1 4 4.1 5 6 7 O Lake Skinner Dam Inundation NAap B O O ~rt4POdut~ioaa History of Watershed The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans are located in the City of Temecula, within the Temecula Valley Sub-Watershed Basin of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Basin (See Exhibit Nd. 1). The development trends begin with commercial developmerrts, Palm Plaza and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems (ACS), adjacent to Interstate 15 at the downstream end of the Study Area. Meadowview, a residential development, located upstream of Margarita Road, -consists of single family homes on 1 /2 acre lots located along ridge lines and open space in the valleys. Roripaugh Estates and Margarita Village are Specific Plan residential developments, located in the mid to upper reaches of the drainage basin, consisting of low to medium density homes. Agricultural developments, Callaway Winery and Hart Winery, dominate the upper limits of the Study Area. Previous drainage reports have been prepared for projects within the Study Area (See Exhibit fdo.1.1), these reports are: 1. The Village at Rancho Callfomia,fVBS/Cowry, May 1987 2. The Rancho Califomia Commerce Center,Robert eein, William Frost, April 1989 O 3. Preliminary Storm Drain Analysis 4or Campos Verdes,IVBS/Lowry,Sept. 1989 The above reports used various aspects of the three reports listed above as a basis for analysis and conclusions, aS described below. However, since the reports have been written there have been changes in land use and other hydrologic data for the Study Area. O The Village at Rancho California report was a preliminary drainage investigation for a proposed shopping plaza located at the site of the existing Palm Plaza. The report assumed a condominium development for what is now the site of the Temecula Regional Center and a portion of Meadowview development. The Village at Rancho Cal'rfomia report established a pond elevation at Interstate 15 of 1043.7 feet for the three culvert systems at Interstate 15, two in ACS and one in Palm Plaza. The pond elevation was established based on the amount of runoff (per the assumed land use) reaching the existing culvert systems and the capacities of the existing culvert systems to convey the runoff under Interstate 15. This pond elevation of 1043.7 feet was used in all subsequent reports and is evident in the finish floor elevations of Palm Plaza and ACS. The Rancho Califomia Commerce Center report was a preliminary drainage investigation performed as part of the Environmental Impact Report/General Plan Amendment for approximately 1049 acres located to the north and southeast of the Winchester Road and Interstate 15 interchange. This report established off-site flow rates 1 Z U /~ Q J li O W ~ J ~ ~ a 8 a ~ '` Z z N ~ ~ ~ v O ti ~ ¢~~ V H m ~ ~ W ~ X y w Z w~ V Ill a ~ ~ O ~ N a ~ m g U i ~~ $ .ow~~ _a ~~ O €E - - - - ~_ 1 =~"l&~ ~~~~ O I ~~ ~ ~ v 0 ~~ ~ ~ 0 `~ °o ,' _ o ~~ w y Z ~~ U O w ~~ a N ~ ~ y~ Z a of aF U U ~ Z O O O 6 ~ G d $ Z ~ K W O ZIn KO OK N Q~ O~ ~w N ~~ V V W OyC~ > Z UK ~ ¢ > t il h _ wUj Oa h0 I ~ C W ~~' z~ z~ J ~ c~ So ¢~ a J V N wa wz w¢ ~z ~ a~ w i c 0 Q e8 0 ~• O U J v~ Si ¢w O 3g u~ ~I U< z5 ~ -1\. 1 S O a ~z W ~ J ~a Z ~ " U LL J Q ~ a W ~ Z a p y ~~ ~ a ~ f- m C (~ U T ~ tC' ~`~ // Z F m X W O to the Campos Verdes development and established Master Plan Drainage Facilities through the specific plan area. The report also noted the undersized culverts at Interstate 15 at Palm Plaza and ACS and accepted these culvert capacities established by The Village at Rancho California report. The Preliminary Storm Drain Analysis for Campos Verdes report was prepared to examine the hydrologic considerations appropriate to the development of the Campos Verdes project. The Preliminary Storm Drain Analysis for Campos Verdes report utilized the off-site flow rates established for the Campos Verdes area within The Rancho California Commerce Center report. For the purpose of preliminary hydrologic analysis for the Campos Verdes report, the off-site flows were accepted and utilized to size the preliminary storm drain system within Campos Verdes. Basis for Studv This Basin Drainage Study was requested by the City of Temecula to clarify and consolidate the information from the previous reports. This Study was also made necessary, because land uses have changed and rainfall data has been revised. This Basin Drainage Study will serve as a guideline in mitigating and implementing the "negative declaration" for the proposed Specific Plans and the development of improvement conditions for the Tentative Maps. O Additionally, the existing drainage facilities from Campos Verdes to Interstate 15 will be analyzed and recommendations for future drainage facilities for the Specific Plans will be provided. General Considerations Project Description _ The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans encompass approximately 320 acres of planned residential, commercial, professional office development and park improvements as described below: Campos Verdes The Campos Verdes Speck Plan includes low, medium and high density housing, community commercial and open space parks. Campos Verdes is located to the west and southeast of Roripaugh Estates and to the northeast of the proposed Margarita Road realignment. Campos Verdes contains approximately 135 acres including a proposed 18 acre park/detention facility. O 2 Temecula Regional Center The Temecula Regional Center is located within the area bounded by Winchester Road, Ynez Road, realigned Margarita Road and the proposed alignment of Overland Drive. The Temecula Regional Center contains approximately 185 acres of Professional Office and Commercial developments, with no proposed on-site detention. Watershed Description The Study Area encompasses approximately 2500 acres northeast of Interstate 15 and for study purposes has been divided into two sub-areas; Area A and Area B (See Exhibft No. 2). Storm flows generated from these sub-areas confluence on the west side of Interstate 15 before reaching Murrieta Creek. Area A contains approximately 2300 acres including portions of Margarita Village, Meadowview, proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center and ACS. Area B encompasses approximately 200 acres including portions of Roripaugh Estates, the proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center and Palm Plaza. The Study Area is approximately 70% developed at this time with the majority of development located upstream of Margarita Road. The Study Area Watershed consists of residential developments upstream of MargaritaO Road with open space used as natural drainage channels and a vineyard at the upstream limit. In addition, the area upstream of Margarita Road is complemented with rolling hills and gently sloping valleys. The area downstream of Margarita Road to Murrieta Creek consists of existing or proposed commercial developments, and is relatively flat in nature. Existing Drainage Facilities(See Exhibit No.3) Interstate 15 The runoff generated in the Study Area has proven to exceed the existing Interstate 15 culverts' capacities and therefore has traditionally ponded upstream of Interstate 15. Developments along Interstate 15, such as Palm Plaza and ACS, have been designed to accept this ponding within their parking lots and the Interstate 15 Right of Way. The existing main line drainage facilities upstream of Interstate 15 consist of earthen channels with culverts at road crossings, reinforced concrete boxes(RCB), concrete channels and reinforced concrete pipes (RCP). The runoff generated in both Area A and Area B are presently conveyed from Ynez Road to the existing Interstate 15 culvert systems via concrete channels and RCBs. A double 8' x 4' RCB and double 6' x 4' RCB under Interstate 15, located at the southwest corner of ACS, acceptsO 3 o I ~. 0 v ~ o ~ LL. y gV J d w Q O ~~ SG ~~_~~ ~~~~ =~~ O ~> 3~ ~ <1 0 ~ g< W ~ ~~5 °e -1\ z aJ ~z W ~ J ~ 6a za~~ o~~w Z ~a y W a m o T~ Z N m 0 WZ C7 ~ ~ X ~w 0 O O / U ~ ~ O ~ II n 0 Oho v °~ ~~ W / J Q U ~ / H O / U ~ ~'1 1 z_ N J ~ % w Q o w ~, I _m O U \ cD O ~~ .-~` ` _ ~ ~~~'~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ \~S z Q ~ W J a J ~z W Q yy C fZ L 2 ~ ~ " U H ~ < ~~`~W C W ~~ a WQ N ~ y m ~ g ~ s ~ U ~ ~o m~ I ~ N U U w I X II ~ ~ I o a - ~ ~ X N ~ I 0 ~ d o~ a ~ ~ o II I U ~ x m o DUI t / Q ~ ~ ~P a -1~~~ ~ Q ~~ ~ J CO ' U U 0 ~~ ~ II x a °° ww o =z f- Z ~ Q W U _~ U O O (~ CU ~~ ~~ O runoff from an existing double 14' x 5' RCB designed by JF Davidson for the ACS project. The double 8' x 4' RCB and double 6' x 4' RCB culvert system under Interstate 15 conveys approximately 820 cfs, as determined by this Basin Drainage Study. A second culvert system located adjacent to the double 8' x 4' RCB and the double 6' x 4' RCB consist of a 48" reinforced concrete pipe. The capacity of the 48" RCP is approximately 98 cfs, as determined by this Basin Drainage Study. - The double 8' x 4' RCB, double 6' x 4' RCB and 48" RCP confluence on the west side of Interstate 15 discharging into an existing double 10' x 5' RCB (Line C, Riverside County Flood Control, Master Drainage Plan for Murrieta Creek). This double 10' x 5' RCB, as designed by To-Mac Engineering, conveys a flow rate of 1250 cfs as indicated by the Riverside County Flood Control, Master Drainage Plan for Murrieta Creek Line C (See Exhibit No. 3.1). This Basin Drainage Study calculated the runoff reaching the existing. double 10' x 5' RCB to be 920 cfs. The calculated runoff which reaches the existing double 10' x 5' RCB is less than the design flow, therefore the proposed upstream developments will not adversely affect the downstream drainage facilities. A third culvert system under Interstate 15 located at the southwest corner of Palm Plaza consists of a 7' x 3' RCB. The capacity of this system has been calculated to be approximately 242 cfs, as determined by this Basin Drainage Study. The runoff that reaches this culvert system was calculated by JF Davidson for the Palm Plaza project O to be approximately 500 cfs. The excess flow was designed to pond within the parking lot of Palm Plaza and the Interstate 15 Right of Way to an elevation of 1043.7'. The excess flow inundates approximately 5 acres within the Palm Plaza parking lot with a maximum depth of 3.7 feet (See Exhibit No.3). The existing double 54" RCP (Line C-1, Riverside County Flood Control, Master Drainage Plan for Murrieta Creek) west of Interstate 15 was designed by To-Mac Engineering to accept 410 cfs as indicated by Riverside County Flood Control, Master Drainage Plan for Murrieta Creek Line C-1 (See Exhibit No. 3.1). The runoff which reaches the existing double 54" RCP ,as determined by the culvert capacity calculations, is less than the design flow, therefore the proposed upstream developments will not adversely affect the downstream drainage facilities. Ynez Road In addition to the existing culverts crossing Interstate 15, there are existing culverts crossing Ynez Road in Areas A and B, and Margarita Road in Area A. An existing double 10' x 5' RCB under Ynez Road, designed by To-Mac Engineering to convey 1250 cfs, in Area A, located upstream of the existing double 14' x 5' RCB in ACS, accepts runoff from an existing earthen channel. This earthen channel was designed by NBS/Cowry to convey a flow rate of 1250 cfs and flows southwesterly from Margarita Road along the boundary of Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Tract 3334. O 4 O W J Q U N Q U O O a J JQ ~' Z U O ~- ~ W-Z ('y S'~ wwU 7 ~y~ ~ ~ ~~ P~ N ~~~~~o ~ Q ~ ~ W J z Q a z W ~ J v a Zo~U ~ ~ LL ~ ~W ? g W W ~ii Q m o V W 15 P~~/ ~I P /, i C O An existing double 7' x 5' RCB culvert crossing Ynez Road located at the boundary of Palm Plaza and ACS, as designed by JF Davidson for the Palm Plaza project, conveys a design flow rate of 420 cfs. An existing earthen channel paralleling Ynez Road, as shown on Exhibit No.3, intercepts runoff generated in Area B and conveys the flow to the aforementioned existing double 7' x 5' RCB. The capacity of this double 7' x 5' RCB was calculated by this Basin Drainage Study to be approximately 640 cfs. Margarita Road An existing 10' x 5' RCB in Area A under Margarita Road, located approximately 2,500 feet north of Solana Way, conveys runoff generated upstream of Margarita Road. The capacity of the 10' x 5' RCB has been calculated by this Basin Drainage Study to convey approximately 670 cfs before overtopping Margarita Road. The 100-year runoff that reaches the 10' x 5' RCB was calculated by this Basin Drainage Study to be 1233 cfs. At the present time this excess runoff will overtop Margarita Road, but in the future the proposed detention basin will mkigate this overtopping problem. At the present time, Margarita Road Extension Interim Improvements, designed by RBF, are under construction froth Winchester Road to North General Keamy Road. A double 30" RCP culvert system located approximately 200 feet southeast of Winchester Road was designed to convey approximately 40 cfs in each pipe. A 60' RCP culvert system located approximately 950 feet southeast of the double 30" RCP O culvert system was designed to convey approximately 85 cfs as an interim condition, but has the capacity to convey approximately 300 cfs. A 24" RCP culvert system under realigned North General Keamy Road at Margarita Road collects street flows from realigned North General Kearny Road and conveys them southerly under existing North General Keamy Road outletting in the location of the proposed detention basin. The previously mentioned earthen channel, located along the boundary of Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Tract 3334, is a °blue-line° stream according to the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Murrieta Quadrangle Map. This °blue-line" stream continues upstream under Margarita Road in the existing 10' x 5' RCB and through the proposed detention basin in Campos Verdes (See Exhibit No.3). Before any construction activity can take place wfthin a °blue-line° stream, an approval and permk by the Army Corps of Engineers, The Cal'rfomia Department of Fish and Game and The Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego Region) must be obtained. These permitting Agencies require written descriptions and exhibits depicting the proposed construction activity and any impact on wildl'rfe and fish habitats. For exact requirements, the permitting Agencies must be contacted to obtain the most current application packages and guidelines. O 5 ~et~to~oiogy Hydroloav The hydrology performed in this study was completed under the guidelines of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) Hydrology Manual. The procedures utilized are documented in the RCFC&WCD Hydrology Manual and incorporated into the computer programs RATRVSD for the Rational Method and FLOODSC for the Synthetic Unit Hydrograph by Advanced Engineering Software(AES). The Rational Method of Hydrology was used to determine the 100-year peak discharge for drainage areas of 300 acres or less and is based on the equation: O=CIA Where: O =Runoff (Cubic feet per second, cfs) C =Coefficient of Runoff I =Rainfall Intensity (Inches per hour) A =Area of Land (Acres) 0 The Rational Method of Hydrology is a conservative approach to runoff quantity determination because the method calculates runoff using cumulative time of O concentration in conjunction with the individual sub-areas. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph was used to determine the 100-year peak discharge for drainage areas greater than 300 acres and for design of storm water detention facilities. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph is based on the principle of transposing rainfall-runoff data from a gaged drainage basin to an ungaged drainage basin, on the basis of differences in physical basin characteristics such as rainfall, shape, area, lag time and loss rates. Hydraulics The preliminary hydraulic study was based on the runoff quantities determined using the hydrologic methods previously discussed. The proposed main line storm drain systems were studied using the computer program StormPlus by Civilsoff (WSPG). Stormplus is based on the Los Angeles County Flood Control's Hydraulic Design Manual and was used to determine water surface elevations, velocity head, pipe velocity and head water for the individual main line storm drain systems. The proposed detention basin located in the Campos Verde Park area was analyzed using the computer program HELEII by AES. HELEII perfdrms detention basin routing calculations based on runoff determined by an inflow unit hydrograph, depth vs. basin storage and depth vs. outflow. Based on these parameters, the detention basin routing O 6 O program determines maximum detention basin depth, maximum detention basin storage and maximum outflow. Existing culvert capacities were determined using the criteria set forth in King's Handbook of Hydraulics (sixth edition, 1976) Section 4-23, Culverts. The capacity of each culvert was determined by calculating ermance and exit losses, friction losses in the culverts and tailwater conditions. Tailwater conditions were used as a conservative approach to calculating culvert capacRies. The criteria used to determine these losses are based upon culvert length, area of flow, roughness coefficient, hydraulic radius and culvert inverts. Desion Criteria The following assumptions were utilized to develop design flow rates: Design Frequency: 100-year and 10-year storm runoff for all proposed storm drain main lines. 100-year storm runoff for retention basin and culvert capacities. Manning's Roughness 0.015 for RCB Coefficient "n°: 0.013 for RCP 0.030 for natural channel O Storm Drain System: Minimum of free board of one foot to proposed finished surface. Detention Basin Sizing: Volume determination by land area available, allowable depth, flow rate and debris production. Debris Production: 100-year storm debris production based on Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Dams and Conservation Branch, fVovember 1959. Culvert Capacity: Outlet, soffit, and tailwater control conditions Entrance Losses, Exit Losses and Friction Losses. Runoff Coefficients: .76 - .78 Single Family 1 /4 acre development .87 - .88 Commercial Development Rainfall Intensity: 100 year 10 minute - 3.48 in./hr. 100 year 60 minute - 1.40 in./hr. O 7 System Proposal Svstem Description Drainage Area A Drainage Area A encompasses approximately 2,300 acres easterly of Interstate 15. Area A generates a 100-year runoff of approximately 400 cfs more than the calculated capacities for the culverts at Interstate 15; therefore, a detention basin located upstream of the existing drainage facilities is proposed by this Study. The location for the proposed detention facility is part of the park area set aside in Campos Verdes (See Exhibit No. 4, Hydrology Map,ln Sleeve). The park/detention basin encompasses approximately 18 acres. The detention basin is designed to contain storm runoff, including debris load, without inundating either of the fields during a 100-year storm. The 100-year storm will inundate approximately 6.3 acres, leaving 11.7 acres of park area and playing fields "dry°. The detention basin has also been designed to account for the debris production wthin the tributary area. Debris Production was calculated using the Report on Debris Reduction Studies for flflountain Watersheds by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Dams and Conservation Branch. 0 The 100-year runoff generated within the 1,670 acres tributary to the detention basin, O as shown on Exhibit No. 4 was calculated to be 1,233 cfs. The area also produces 8,376 cubic yards (5.2 acre-feet) of debris. The total available storage volume for the park/detention basin was calculated to be approximately 90 acre-feet. The outlet structure, a double 6' x 5' RCB, was used to limit the outflow from the basin. For aesthetic reasons, a minimum 50 foot setback from Margarita Road Right of Way for the downstream end of the detention basin was used as a design criteria for sizing the basin (See Exhibit No. 4.1). The detention basin characteristics as proposed at maximum stage are as follows; the storage volume utilized for debris and storm flows was 38 acre-feet, a depth of 12.2 feet above the flow line of the outlet, corresponding to elevation 1069' and an outflow of 733 cfs. The 38 acre-feet of storage utilized at maximum stage represents a debris storage of approximately 5.2 acre-feet and a storm flow storage of approximately 32.7 acre-feet. Approximately 70 acres of drainage area from Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates will be routed from Area B to Area A (See Exhibit No. 5, Hydrology Map,ln Sleeve). This routing of storm flows from Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates will not divert any flows to other drainage basins. This routing will not increase the amount of runoff tributary to the Ynez Road culvert at Palm Plaza, but will result in a reduced runoff reaching this culvert system. The runoff reaching the Ynez Road culvert system at ACS will also experience a reduction from the design flow rate due to the increased storage capacity and reduced outflow from the detention basin upstream of Margarita Road. The purpose of rerouting runoff and increasing detention capacity is to lessen O 8 Q,~ _ iZ33 cfs m i n-' O l ~; ~'~ ~~ "- PG°Q oOPOO ~I~DD ~~` b ~~' o La~'~G~1 h \ 'rl ~ ` ` 9 ` t V ~~' ~.~~10®6g ~~~ ~ ~l \ b ~i('~ ~° • ~ •' •1' ~ ~,~ FL~QOD PLA/N ~ ~ ~^, \ , \- \ ~ 1 ~. •~ 1 I PARCfiL 5 \ • } ~ '• ,:b~,e 5 ` \t~ ~!}~ o \ `. 1 NUIJ AT~ION J ~ s~~r` B ~ _ ~. ~~ / ~ ce_• .. 1 _ -_ _ .. 6 -~~~~ _ /fir- ~i :0 • ~i `\ P PO° w _ I \ -_ ~ - ~ qIW I \ 79 _ i ~ ' ~ T \ 1 , ` . I ~ ~~ Jy~ ~ ;a. ~~ yia~P~ ' t \ i i1 ~~ t r ~ t~ \ 1~~~ _Lff Or n: / rvy m.' .acrd. ,~r~ a ~. ~ J' ~ \ !C ~"' \111\ \ 'b. a[[t55 7~'~ '~.: ~~ ° [ocio[t6s t at-oons ~~ `•;:.\:.~ ,..~. ~ t 0 115 Cm>) F®le Des ~171J~25 8 (711) 616-6115 FAY 676-7976 ° O.^2G B 3 cfs \er _ ~ \ O the existing flooding problem at Interstate 15 in Palm Plaza and ACS. The total reduction in runoff reaching the Interstate 15 culverts was calculated to be approximately 230 cfs. This reduced runoff equates to a 12°k reduction in flow reaching the Interstate 15 culverts. Although the flow to these culverts will be reduced, existing limits of inundation should remain intact to avoid encroachment into the existing limits of inundation. Line A The main storm drain line, Line A, in Area A (See Exhibit No. 6) commences just downstream of Roripaugh Estates. Line A begins at the existing outlet of a 36" RCP located at the southerly comer of Roripaugh Estates and meanders through Campos Verdes in a 48' RCP southwesterly until it reaches Margarita Road. From there, Line A continues south in Margarita Road in a 60' RCP until its confluence with Lateral A-2. Line A conveys a total developed runoff of 214 cfs from 91 acres in a 60" RCP, at the confluence with Lateral A-2. Downstream of Lateral A-2, Line A transitions into a double 8' x 5' RCB, and conveys a 100-year flow rate of 947 cfs. Line A continues south in Margarita Road until the intersection of proposed Overland Drive and Margarita Road. At this point, Line A turns westerly down proposed Overland Drive until it reaches the property line between Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Tract 3334. At the intersection of Overland Drive and the property line of Lot 6 and Lot 7, Line A confluences with Lateral A-1. Line A transitions into a double 10' x 5' RCB after the O confluence and conveys a 100-year flow rate of 1107 cfs to the existing double 10' x 5' RCB at Ynez Road. Line A continues to Interstate 15 through a double 14' x 5' RCB along the southerly property line of ACS conveying a total calculated flow of 1215 cfs. This calculated flow exceeds the Interstate 15 culvert capacities by approximately 300 ds, but is less then the previously calculated runoff of approximately 1380 cfs per the double 14' x 5' RCB storm drain system and ACS on-site hydrology, per JF Davidson. Lateral A-1 Lateral A-1 is located in the southern portion of the Temecula Regional Center and collects runoff generated south of proposed North General Kearny Road and north of proposed Overland Drive. Lateral A-1 is composed of a series of RCPs ranging from a 36" RCP at the upstream end to a 60" RCP at Line A. Lateral A-1 conveys a 100- year developed flow rate of 173 cfs from 76 acres. Lateral A-2 Lateral A-2 begins at the outlet of the proposed detention basin. Consisting of a double 6' x 5' RCB which restricts the outflow from the detention basin, Lateral A-2 in conjunction with the detention basin, reduces the runoff from 1233 cfs to 733 cfs. O 9 0 0 0 O Area B Area B (See Exhibit No. 5, Hydrology Map) contains approximately 200 acres which drains to the existing double 7' x 5' RCB under Ynez Road at Palm Plaza. Area B begins in the portion of Campos Verdes adjacent to Winchester Road and Roripaugh Estates. Line B The main storm drain line in Area B is Line B (See Exhibit No. 6). Line B originates in the portion of Campos Verdes adjacent to Winchester Road and Roripaugh Estates. Line B collects runoff generated from approximately 32 acres in Campos Verdes and conveys storm flows under Margarita Road in an existing double 30" RCP system. Line B traverses the Temecula Regional Center in a southwesterly direction collecting runoff from 45 acres. Line B conveys 116 cfs in a 54" RCP before transitioning into a 60" RCP. The 60" RCP continues southwesterly collecting runoff from an additional 40 acres. Line B then transitions into a 5' x 5' RCB and continues south before confluencing with Lateral B-2. Downstream of Lateral B-2, Line B turns southwesterly along the proposed North General Kearny Road alignment until its confluence with Lateral B-1. At this point, Line B transitions into a 7' x 5' RCB traversing in a southwesterly direction until reaching the existing double 7' x 5' RCB at Ynez Road. The 7' x 5' RCB conveys a total developed 100-year storm runoff of 324 cfs. O Downstream of Ynez Road, Line B continues through an existing concrete channel to Interstate 15. The total calculated runoff reaching the existing 7' x 3' RCB culvert under Interstate 15 is 432 cfs with a total tributary area of approximately 189 acres. This runoff exceeds the Interstate 15 culvert system by approximately 200 cfs, but is less then the previously calculated runoff of approximately 500 cfs per the concrete channel plans and the on-site hydrology of Palm Plaza, per JF Davidson, due to the rerouting of storm flows from Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates. Lateral B-1 Lateral B-1 is a 42" RCP which collects 59 cfs of runoff from approximately 23 acres in the Temecula Regional Center, bounded by proposed General Kearny Road, Winchester Road and Ynez Road. Lateral B-2 Lateral B-2 consists of a 54" RCP which collects 120 cfs of runoff from 42 acres in the Temecula Regional Center, bounded by proposed North General Kearny Road and Margarita Road. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the proposed drainage system for both Area A and Area B to Ynez Road. O 10 Proposed ®rainage Facilities O Table 9 Drainage Area A Line Designation Runoff Drainage Length (cfs) Facility (feet) Line A 105 48" RCP 1460 151 60" RCP 650 214 60" RCP 1670 947 2-8' x 5' RCB 1730 1107 2-10' x 5' RCB 840 Lateral A-1 23 36" RCP 350 53 42" RCP 410 92 48" RCP 350 108 54" RCP 790 173 60" RCP 340 Lateral A-2 733 2-6' x 5' RCB 150 Drainage Area B Line Designation Runoff Drainage Length (cfs) Facility (feet) Line B 40 36" RCP 470 85 (2) 30" RCP 770 116 54" RCP 460 136 60" RCP 1200 175 5' x 5' RCB 760 324 7' x 5' RCB 1680 Lateral B-1 59 42" RCP 550 Lateral B-2 44 36" RCP 390 68 48" RCP 680 96 54" RCP 80 11 O O 0 ~loodptain ueetp~cits Introduction The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans are ° located in the vicinity of the Santa Gertrudis Creek which is located northwest of Winchester Road. Although the Santa Gertrudis Creek is located in the Santa Gertrudis Valley Sub-Watershed, it is the main source for potential flooding in the Study Area adjacent to Interstate 15. However, it should be noted, that recent improvements along Santa Gertrudis Creek will relieve flooding downstream of the Temecula Regional Center but, this will not be evident until such time that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issues a letter of Map Revision and reprints the affected Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Federal Emergency Management Aoency FEMA is the responsible agency for floodway determination and 100-year Flood Boundaries within a drainage area. FEMA details inundated areas through the use of FIRMs. According to FIRM panel 2745 of 3600 for the Unincorporated Areas of O Riverside County, 1984, the 100-year Flood Boundary for Santa Gertrudis Creek does not inundate any of the proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specfic Plan Area (See Exhibit No. 7). Lake Skinner Dam Break Lake Skinner is a 41,700 acre-foot storage reservoir located northeast of the City of Temecula. An earthen dam retains the lake within natural canyons. In the event of a dam failure, flooding would result along Tecalota Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek from Winchester Road to Murrieta Creek (See Exhibit No. 8). The inundated areas and all other information shown on the Lake Skinner Dam Inundation Map provided by Metropol'dan Water District(MWD) of Southern California have been accepted but not been verified by this Study. From the information obtained from MWD, depths of inundation are not readily available. However, it appears that a catastrophic failure of the Skinner Dam would cause flooding over the majority of the Temecula Regional Center and a small portion of Campos Verdes. No residential properties within Campos Verde will be affected by this potential catastrophe. It should be noted that the inundation plan has not taken into consideration any improvements along either Tecalota or Santa Gertrudis Creeks. Also, the plan was recently to the Office of Emergency Services for approval. O 12 O O O 0 N N ~~ U 4 w J Q V N D s W N \\ ~ z ~ o O a az O ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~a J ~ z o ~ V ~ m Q` W } = z ~++ y W N m ~ ~ V ~ ~ - 1 1 O O O ~6 R s C ~~ 0 w o y N V n y Q W J Q V N a b ~a J p< ~Z ~ m < a~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6_ LL ~ W NQ m _ S !. W ~ ~~ ~ W a m Y~ ~ ~ ~ J U ~ IL - ~~ - 1 1 /~l II O Assessment District 161 Assessment District 161 proposes no improvements to storm drain facilities within the proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans. ~eediPOeaenen4sY CoaasidePaibons National Pollutant Discharge Elimination_ystem (NPDESI The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) currently administers the NPDES permit regulations. NPDES permits are issued by the State under the authority of the EPA to selected industries, construction activities and municipalities. The Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Speck Plans will be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Permit) as well as any permit issued by the City of Temecula. The Permit must be acquired through a Notice of Intent filed with the State RWQCB. The control of storm water quality by identifying point and non-point contaminates and mitigating these contaminates by' the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address the reduction of contaminates during construction and after the completion of construction are required comply with the Permit. The SWPPP encompasses the following O criteria: o Erosion and Sediment Control Measures o Waste Management and Disposal o Non-storm Water Management (Urban Runoff) o Construction Management Practices o Training Program o Maintenance, Inspection and Repair of SWPPP Documentation O 13 Some of the general recommended construction practices that will be included in the site O SWPPP are as follows: o Keep pollutants from entering the storm drain o Keep pollutants off. of exposed surfaces a Prevent pollutant contact with rainfall or runoff o Minimize the generation of wastes and dispose of them properly o Prevent spills and leaks, and clean up accidents immediately o Cover and store all materials that could become storm water pollutants o Keep concrete and cement mortars out of storm drains and streams o Avoid over-application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides o Use care during pavement construction with petrochemicals and bitumens o Minimize the extent of the disturbed area and duration of exposure o Stabilize and protect disturbed areas as soon as possible o Keep runoff velocities low o Retain sediment within the construction site area with silt fences, straw bales and other devices o Implement a thorough maintenance and follow-up program Post-construction storm water pollution prevention BMP's are aimed at reducing the amount of contaminates entering the storm water system. Some typical non-structural O BMP's that will be used as post-construction control include: o Stenciling of catch basins warning of dumping wastes o Good housekeeping manuals distributed to the homeowners at the time of purchase o Good housekeeping requirements for business and industry within the project o Limits on the use pesticides and fertilizers in common areas Determination of the best use of structural BMP's should be made during final design phase of the project. O 14 O Conclusions and ff~ecoenenenda4ions The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans along with possible upstream development necessitates the need for improved drainage and detention facility upstream of Ynez Road. The drainage and detention facilities improvements proposed in this Study are the recommended systems to convey storm water runoff through the projects. The proposed drainage system should be constructed prior to or in conjunction with the development of both the Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans. Phasing of the drainage facilities for Campos Verdes should coincide with the phasing plan as shown in the Speck Plan. The Temecula Regional Center drainage facilfties should coincide with the phasing plan as shown in the Specific Plan. However, the detention basin,rf not already constructed within the Campos ~, Verdes Speck Plan, will need to be constructed when the amount of runoff entering the Palm Plaza/ACS ponding facility reaches approximately 1900 cfs. The proposed detention basin will reduce the peak flows downstream of Margarita Road, thus minimizing any detrimental impact on existing downstream drainage facilities and developments. The on-site drainage systems for the Specfc Plans are proposed to be constructed of reinforced concrete pipes and boxes. The type of conveyance chosen is based on availability, familiarity and long life expectancy. O The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center development will not adversely affect any of the properties downstream to Murrieta Creek, but will reduce potential impact on these properties, provided the proposed drainage and detention facilities are implemented. Reducing the potential impact on the downstream properties is accomplished by restricting and detaining the flows upstream of Margarita Road. The proposed drainage system is designed to reduce the runoff conveyed to Ynez Road, thereby reducing the runoff reaching downstream properties. O 15 O O O a a g ' Q s e e r 0 n 3y ;? p I 4 YC Q ; ^ o ~ ~ II S ~..`l. ] .. .,., s ~ re ry ax .; 1, .iy .. ~~:.: , ~!: ". a:. .- ter,; ~'~ ~ ..el 4 ~ .:3 .~S~ •:p.~! {f ~.~ ' r~~++~~ HILL`S ~ !~: /p1' /. / MGMS GNOOL ! i, ~` ~` _ ~tr '/,l~a~ ~Xt~ r ~~1 ~~y~~^ / / i sir / ~`C~'~h. .r a ..pe ~:: . 1 Y s' vl t ly~`I ~. ~ .ems = "' li ~/ ~ ~ ~~ ~ . / k~q, TYr rr ~il P~"' mil' ~ww .F...j~ iT ~fj'Jrlt".!gxt?E: rrai/ / ~ VALLE ., ', \~'%~ ~~~°/,.sr; f...'r.'.. .fir >• I t~ / ! / ~ . ~' ~. -i ~l .~. ' •. y t. \.. s A.:. ' ~ i ', ~INCMESTER MIGNLANDS _. ~ `~ .~ ,"'~ "~~ ~ ~~, I "• r BUSINESS VARK ~.\ Ga~ °Q"` ~; r b~'\. '•I '' i• 1 IU//.,. ~j~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ raw I ~ d il~ ~ ,. ~ p .. ~ W' ~~~~~~~ ' °w a. d as K 1 S•'q ° .~~ 'r.j ,. r 0. /l] `~.Ti1TLa .. \^ ~', _•_r"`~lli~ ~~_~C /1 ~Z r - . -.~ ~ .- r _~ w a ww.r V", ~ ~••••a ~ .~ ~ DEL '. ~ r •' a r~.%.. ~~ q., rl ••~~ 11 •~ as \ ' ~ ,+' ®~ ~ ® -~ ~~ ~. `/~~ _ ~~ .. '"~ ~ ~!_ ~~ . t.t`~ /AMAT1RM1a ~ ' \ ~ '' ./ / aao wan ~/ ~ ~ I GE / ~ ~' COWF11G4. ~ T c'}OIY TrJ' 1 aGCT" .1~. l~• I Lraram ~ L•~T~"\ ~Ti/4'=~•' :~ awv ru e.~rv .. ~'~ ~ 9 1. ~/ ~ ~ ~ e~srtaa ~ . . .. ~ i\ aCllaa _/~y_MYa Ca WT .. .. / ~ / / r V aAOatf1. ~ ~ .., _ / \ `~ ( / \\~\/l OCYOt70LOmY_~MAP \ /\ _~~~- n7iM101T O~~ O ~,~~ ~~~77~~ QQ /~/~~~77~~~77~~~7~~ ~p~~pn~~yy~~~~pp 1WL511L1[JllY ~1[alLb b~y IlA'A'b O O V1/IL~UR SiVIITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS Sheet, Suite 226 • Riverside. CA pl4) 27d-0566 • FAX p14) 274-9220 October Z3, 1492 Mr. Robert Righetti Department of Public Works City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Kemper Urban Core Projects -Site Access and On-Site Traffic Circulation Related Issues. Several issues have surfaced during the course of responding to City comments and concerns related to the three Kemper/Bedford urban core Specific Plans. The purpose of this Addendum material is to respond to and/or provide clarification for the following specific issue: 1) Bicycle lane safety concerns along the Winchester Hills internal loop road. O 2) Winchester Hills neighborhood shopping center ingress/egress. 3) Limited access driveways located along the Winchester Road frontage of the Temecula Regional Center. 4) East-west on-site circulation roadway within the Temecula Regional Center. Wilbur Smith Associates will incorporate this material into the final updated traffic study documents. Please call if you have any questions regarding this material. Sincerely yours, Wilbur Smith Associates i ~r"'~ 4 ~a~n~~ Robert A. Davis Associate O RADaj ..NY, NV • ALLIANCE. OH CAIRO. EGVPT • CHARLESTON. SC COLUMBIA, SC a COLUMBUS. OH a DES MOINES. IA FgLLS CHURCH. VA _J6 KONG • HOUSTON. TX • KNOXVILLE. TN a LEXINGTON. KV • LONDON. ENGLAND LOS ANGELES. CA MIAMI, FL NEENAH, WI :cW HAVEN, C7 OAKLAND. CA ORLANDO. FL PITTS?URGH. PA PORTSMOUTH. NH • PROVIDENCE. RI RALEIGH, NC ^tiMOND. VA • RIVERSIDE. CA • ROSELLE. IL • SAN FRANCISCO. CA .SAN JOSE. CA • SINGAPORE • TORONTO. CANADA • WASHINGTON, DC EAAPLOYEE•OWNEC COMPANY T'ratltDC Study Addendum Purpose and Scope O Addendum material presented herein includes discussion of the following issues: 1) Wht~e City staff concurs that the recommended two-lane Collector Street would adequately accommodate traffic volumes projected for the Winchester Hills internal loop road, wncerns have been expressed regazding potential bicycle-vehicle conflicts along this facility. 2) This location and configuration of ffie proposed neighborhood commercial center within the Winchester Ht7Ls Specific Plan does not allow standard spacing to be provided along Date Street or Ynez Road for a full movement access intersection serving the commercial site. In lieu of a full access intersection, what alternatives exist for providing adequate access to and from the site? 3) City staff has expressed concern regarding proposed right-in and right-out access driveways serving the Temecula Regional Center along Winchester Road. Are there any alternatives which would further minimize the potential for disruption to traffic flows using Winchester Road while stiIl providing favorable access to the site? O 4) A Specific Plan road has been designated in the Draft General Plan Circulation Element to run east west within the Temecula Regional Center site and provide connections with Ynez Road (at the Palm Plaza Main Access Drive) and Mazgarita Road (at the General Kearney Road). What type of facility does this need to be from an azeawide circulation viewpoint? Winchester Hills Iaap Road Based on the results of the Specific Plan traffic study a standard two-lane Collector street _. was recommended to serve forecasted traffic volumes ranging from 1,6(10 vehicles per day (south of Date Street) to 8,400 vehicles per day (east of C-Street/Ynez Road connector street). A standard Collector street cross-section, depicted in Figure la, provides a 44-foot wide paved roadway within a 66-foot right-of-way. 0 2 o~ ~~~ ~~ I i' lo' 12' 12' 10' 11' 44' ~D Cob' ft•QW. Typical Section eoo oeooe eooeoooo ooo eoo oo eoovooooe oooe ooooeeo O ~v' O Standard Collector Street Cross Sections Figure 1 RAoclifiec9 Option lR/ith Bike Lanes O In response to the City's request for the provision of curb side pazking along one side of the street and designated birycle lanes, the modified cross-section (with 4~foot paved roadway) depicted in Figure lb was developed. In both proposals, a 13-foot landscape easement was added on both sides of the right-of--way. With this cross-section, left-turn movemenu from the loop road to local side sueeu are made from the same lane carrying through traffic. It is our understanding that City staff concerns' relate to a potential situation where a vehicle wanting to turn left from the loop road onto a local side street is forced to wait wht~e opposing traffic passes. The specific concern, is that a vehicle following the vehicle which has paused to make the left turn may, be tempted to veer around the stopped vehicle (in order to avoid stopping) and encroach on the bike lane where ryclisu may be present One possible mitigation for this concern, which has been requested by City staff to be considered, involves the construction of a principal collectorfmdustrial collector instead of a standard collector or street. The principal collector cross-section depicted in Figure 2a provides a 56-foot paved roadway within a 78-foot right-of--way. The 56-foot pavement width allows for a continuous left-turn lane in addition to one through lane in each direction and curb pazking on both sides. A modified version of this cross- section, which provides curbside pazking on one side only and a base lane on both sides, is O depicted in Figure 2b. Our evaluation of this issue is focused on the birycle safety issue, however, related community design issued cannot be ignored. A detailed review of the Bikeway Planning and Design Chapter of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual revealed the following: The stated purpose of a Class II Bikeway (bike lane) is to improve conditions for biryclisu in a travel wrridor by delineating the right-of-way assigned to biryclisu and motorists and to provide for more predictable movemenu by each. There is no reference to the inappropriateness, undesirability or safety concern in providing a bike lane along atwo-lane street which does not have separate left-turn bays at intersections. While it is stated that most auto/birycle accidenu occur at intersections, none of the most common suto/birycle conflicts involve the safety concern raised for the Winchester Hills loop road. Typical birycle/auto movements at intersections are illustrated in Figure 3. The typical birycle movemenu depicted in Figure 3 are O allowed and should be accomplished in accordance with the normal rules of the road. 3 o~ CURBSIDE PARKING III ~ to' 12' t2' 8Co' PA~p 78' R.o, kl . f2' CURBSIDE PARKING Typical Section lo' ~ 11' 'O p e e o e o o p e o e o 0 o e o 0 0 o e e o 0 o e o 0 o e o o p o o p o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CURBSIDE PARKING I I1~ 81 5~ 12' 1.g-I 121 ~, ~Co' . PA.v~,D ~8' R.o, 4~l . I1~ RAodffied Option With Si1ce Lanes O Principal Collector/Industrial Collector Cross Sections Figure 2 lOD6-14 HIGIiWAY DESIGAI MANUAL O )~uurr. 1987 T pica) Bicycle/Auto Movements at intersections of Multilane Streets O C Figure 3 Wilbur Smith Associates has also reviewed the projected peak-hour traffic forecasts and O expected turning movements along the Winchester Hills loop road. In this review, we assessed the general likely hood and frequenry of conditions which could result in the auto birycle conflict presented by City staff. Results of this review indicate the projected peak-hour traffic volumes for the loop road reflect a maximum flow rate of approximately two vehicles per minute in each direction. The probability that a vehicle wanting to tum left will encounter an opposing vehicle at any given intersection is quite low based on these traffic flow rates. If is assumed that this particulaz conditions will occur from time to time, then it should also be stated that the probability is even lower that a second vehicle would be in a position behind the vehicle paused momentarily (before turning left) where the trailing driver would be delayed by the vehicle turning left. Even if it is assumed that, on occasion, both of these conditions would be satisfied, in our judgement, most motorists would recognize and accept the momentary delay rather than intentionally violate the bike lane right-of--way. Without even considering the likelihood of a ryclist behind present in the bike lane and in a position of potential conflict, we would conclude that the combination of vehicle movements and exact vehicle positioning would not occur at a frequenry which should be recognized as a safety problem. Similarly these findings would not in our professional judgement warrant the need to implements a street cross-section containing a continuous left-turn lane. O When put into perspective, typical birycle/auto movements (in Figure 3), which occur at intersections throughout the City, represent a much greater safety risk than the issue in question. As long as birycles aze allowed to operate on the road with vehicular traffic, there will be a potential for auto/birycle conflicts and even with the best bike lane design standards available, the potential of anto/birycle conflicts will always be highest at intersections. In addition to the findings and recommendations already given, Wilbur Smith associates would like to make the following suggestions regarding the potential loop road cross-section and striping designs: ° Assuming that the City accept our recommendations to maintain a standazd collector road for the loop road, we would recommend either of the two cross-section and striping options presented in Figure 4. ° Should the City decide that a continuous left-turn lane must be provided on the loop road, then we would recommend the cross-section and striping option depicted in Figure 5. This reduced cross-section would minimize the expanse of pavement O needed while at the same time accommodate the relatively low left-turn volumes in 4 O 6~ ax~esi~ PARI(ING III 8' ~ ~' ~ -2' i2' ~ 6~ ~.._ 1 t ~-4' QAvE~ Cob' fz•QW. O O ~eCOn'lrnen~@~ Collector Street Cross Sections Figure 4 r~ ~~ , ~~ J2.5 ~ 8~ ~~ f2~ III s3' . P~v~D 78' Ft.o, W . 12' ~ ~" ~ ~ 2.5 RAociified O Principal Collec$or/Indusgrial Collecl:or Cross Sec4ion Figure,.5 a separate lane. Wide street sections tend to encourage motorists to drive at a higher O rate of speed and from a neighborhood design perspective, this would not be desirable. Regardless of which option is selected by the City, we recommend that: Travel lanes should not be striped wider than 12 feet; and The bike lane adjacent to the pazking lane should be delineated by two white strips (e.g. one on each side of the bike lane) in order to more cleazly define the presence of the bike lane. This is particularly important in situarions where there aze no vehicles pazked along the curb and the combination bike-lane/pazking lane area could be mistaken as a travel lane. Winchester Rills Aleighbarhoud Shopping Center Access The intent of the Winchester Hills site layout was to gain access to the neighborhood commercial center from Date Street and Ynez Road as well as the internal loop road. From O a marketing and economic viability standpoint both visibt7ity and access from the two arterial streets are very important features of this site. From a community design standpoint this commercial center is intended to provide for the day-today shopping and service commercial needs of the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of the commercial center allows a major portion of the residential trade azea traffic to access the center via the internal Winchester Ht11.c loop road. The remainder of the trade azea traffic would be approaching the site via Date Street and Ynez Road. Wilbur Smith Associates concurs with City staff that site access along Date Street should be restricted to right-in/right-out traffic movements. This due to the long-range (build-out) projected traffic volumes (approodmately 38,000 vehicles per day) and Urban Arterial status of this road. In the case of Ynez Road, its Arterial status and lower long-range (build-out) traffic forecast (28,000 vehicle per day), would in our opinion, allow consideration of two restricted access conditons. These include a signle access driveway with: c 5 a) The prohibition of left-turn movements out of the site and the allowance of left-turns O into the site as well as right-turn in-and-out of the site; or b) The restriction of access to right-in/right-out traffic movements only. Option (a) would eliminate the most difficult movement (the outbound left-turn) which has the greatest number of conflicting traffic movements to contend with (e.g. northbound and southbound through traffic as well as southbound left-turns entering the site driveway). The southbound left-turn movement into the site, which is allowed in Option (a) must only yield to northbound traffic. The right-turn movements out of and into the driveway involve even less potential traffic conflicts and would be allowed under either option. In our evaluation of Option (a), we first estimated the evening peak-hour traffic movements which are expected to occur at the intersection. These traffic projections (t7lustrated in Figure 6) represent build-out of the project and build-out of the City's Draft General Plan. Highway Capacity Ivtanual (HCIVI) procedures were used to analyze Level of Service at this unsignalized intersection. The results of this analysis (see attached worksheet) indicate that the southbound left-turn movement into the site driveway would operate at Level of Service O D or better during the evening peak-hour and Level of Service C or better during other periods of the day. The outbound right-turn movement would operate at Level of Service B or better during all periods of the day. Intersection analysis work sheets are provided in the attached Appendix. The level of service analysis indicates that even under the projected 'worst case" condition that southbound left-turn movement would operate at a acceptable service level. Since the analysis methodology inherently assumes a "random" arrival pattern for northbound traffic and the actual arrival pattern (with the planned signal at "C' Street) would be more accurately characterized as a "platooned" pattern, southbound left-turn traffic would have longer and more favorable gaps in northbound traffic then the HCIvI analysis results indicate. In our judgement, the southbound left-turn movement into the site could be served in a safe and efficient manner without measurable impact on Ynez Road traffic operation. The only remaining issue with this access option pertains to left-turn movement at Date Street and the southbound left-turn movement at Date Street and the southbound left-turn movement at the commercial center driveway. - 0 6 O O c ~ M o 158 00 ~ 43" ~apcfERelgL CENTER Q+e,vFWgy C ~ N~ M ~ W nN fhriBovaD LEFT-Twin M ~ O ~ PRaNrBr•T~p n ~" ~ ~ 1.58 Corwa7~gL'C~~ DR,v~y o u w ~ M Quo P. M. P aa a eak Hour Volumes ~ v~ ~ p r.A pROJ ~(~~~ ECTEp ~ultD-OuT Figure (o The total left-turn bay storage requirement on Ynez Road was based on HCM methodology O for the signalized intersection approach at Date Street and Calttans Highway Design Manua] methodology for the unsignalized intersection approach at the commercial center driveway approach. A summary of the projected butld-out left-turn volumes and calculated left-turn storage requirements are illustrated in Figure 7. The analysis results indicate the need for a northbound double left-turn storage bay length of 325 feet and southbound single left-turn storage bay length of 150 feet. Assuming a 150 -foot overlapping taper length, the total minimum storage bay length would be 625 feet The accommodation of the southbound left- turn bay in addition to the northbound left-turn bay would result in a minimum intersection spacing requirement of approximately 700 feet Since the southernmost lot line of the commercial center is approximately 800 feet south of the Date Street centerline, access Option (a) could be accommodated if the driveway were to be located within 100 feet of the site's southern boundary. Temecula Regional Center Winchester Road Access In the Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Impact Study, the proposed access plan for O the site included three right-in/right-out minor access driveways (evenly spread along the Winchester Road frontage) in addition to the two principal site access intersections which would be signalized. This plan was conceived based on an attempt to balance the following goals: Provide easy access to all development areas within the Regional Center, Maintain the maximum possible between full-movement signalized access intersections along Winchester Road; Provide additional non-signalized access points along the projects Winchester Road frontage; and Design non-signalized access points in a manner which would minimize disruption to through traffic flows along Winchester Road. C 7 c D~ 5T a 0 O ~ N 2 1~ ~~ ~a ` u q~q ~ y N th J a a' u t y a s Q 1 a Q _o ~ W Y pp N ~ F ~ d~ h a V u C w° C h W s `K r r w a V 4 a 0 N W N COMM6RGgL CENTER D4rvtalgy ~O 0 ~~nP,~rro~Pb ®~ I~~s4Pa~4~~ PaCC~~~ ®~it6®eu (~) ~~~~°~6~PP0 ~tr®P~1~~ ~Pfl~I UPUS~~P~~~4~®V11 ~~~C~PtI~ I~~~aDBP~PfN~Pt1trS 1~3gaaP~ d In view of recent concerns expressed by both the City of Temecula and Caltrans regarding O the need to maintain a high degree of access control along Winchester Road, Wilbur Smith Associates has re-evaluated the proposed site access plan. Our re-evaluation is focussed on the proposed right-in/right-out driveway access poinu. Wh>7e we sell believe that access points which are restricted to right-in and right-out movements have very little disruptive effects an the operation of "through lane" traffic we have considered addition restrictions which would all but eliminate the potential four traffic conflicts between project-related traffic utilizing auxiliary access drives and "through lane" traffic on Winchester Road. The proposed access modification is depicted in Figure 8. This schematic layout calls for the elimination of right-turn movements out of the restricted access driveways. In essence, only right-turns into the site would require the provision of a 12-foot wide deceleration/right- turn lane along the project frontage in advance of the right-in currently designed full- movement signalized intersections along the Winchester Road frontage it would be possible to provide approximate 500-foot deceleration lanes in advance of each of the three "right-turn-in only" access points. With this access concept, all movements out of the site along Winchester Road would be made at a signalized intersection. Temecula Regional Center Fast-West ®n-Site Circulation Roadway O The issue of whether or not aneast-west roadway facility is needed crossing the Regional Center site from Ynez Road (at the Palm Plaza main access) to Margarita Road (at General Kearney Road) is one which has received much attention and debate. This concept was not considered in the original Specific Plan Traffic Study primarily due to site planning considerations. Based on site planning and project implementation strategy considerations, atwo-lane public street passing through the project would: in essence cut the useable site area in half; preclude development of the western portion of the site as a more regions]-oriented commercial center, encourage through traffic and discourage on site pedestrian travel; and undermine the potential for developing a portion of the site in a more neo-traditional O fashion. 8 A O q I ~l u m ~ /'~ ~ ) ~r/ f w`z Ly ~ `o a a Os ~/ r JJl r' ~ J L j- _Ly o c a e ~ 1nr ;,o t i i ~ = ry i ~ i 1 y~ yJ t., y P ~) az W~ w- ~ t ~ ~ O wl 1 ~ n 7 2 - yPe W r I~v~ Z~ o ~ ' W J / Y O ~ r ~j ~ Al q` \ ie c~ Ly ~.r ~r\\' fi1 6 O' ~ Zr ~ / f , ~ pb ~ 6 r`v ~ ~~2 ~ ` ~ ~~l ~ ~ ~~ R~ ~ CL A ~ ~ ~ ni i _ ~ a~ ~" "~ ~®~ F ~, ~, ~ c ~ ` . , ~ iy 1 1 r ~ ~ a ~ i `i, r ~ P ~ ~ ~~ w a~ ~ i ), r r r } c~ y QL ®~ Qol 1~ r ,,,~~, .ter ta! O ~e J ~ ~ r~ v '~ r\ ~ b d e~w ~ ~ a r ~ ~ c 1~ Irv ) ,~r ~ ~ V I~ al L' L' v J94 ~ ~ ~ oen ~Z Jil.rZ o~~ c Jll, a 1 \ J tT,r wM1 ar „ e C ~ Ea o ag o C 1 ~ `~ ;~ 12 C ~°~~ t\~O ~) ~ .J C - Q IS ~ h.. + qq ~y ~ LAS W Ql= 1< J 1 t ! WI In yo ~~ r - a i~ n~ °J i° r Ly U onn.-Z g. •~ J ~. r' Z a `y t1 31V _ b3 O Z Z~ q t r _ ~ T% ~-~ s 1N, __ -^- ~~ Z Z~ 1 ~ r '3AY NOStl3ii3f 3 Z~ wWO ~ tlQY qo O~ ~~LL77 «1 t~o 00 ~°° ~ During the City's General Plan process Wr7bur Smith Associates was requested to develop build-out traffic projections with aneast-west street located on the site. The daily traffic assignment indicated that up to 12,000 vehicles per day would use this roadway if ft were implemented. A closer review of the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) centroid loadings reveals that apprrndmately 7,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day would be directly attnbutable to the Regional Center and the remainder would be through traffic (e.g. approtimately 4,Q00 to 5,000 vehicles per day). In the Draft Circulation Plan, this east-west roadway facr7iry was designated as a Specific Plan Road for the following reasons: Projected traffic flows on this facrliry appeared to warrant some form of "continuous" fac>7iry between Ynez Road and Margarita Road; and Due to numerous project design concepts which were discussed as part of the General Plan Land Use Element and being considered by Bedford/Kemper, special esthetics and functional design treatments would be highly desirable for this facr7iry. These include features which would provide a more pedestrian friendly environment and would promote a more cohesive and destination oriented activity center. In the analysis we are focusing on the traffic operation and circulation system issues related O to the facility rather than the land-use/project design concept issues. To better understand the impacts 'of the east-west Regional Center street connection, we first identified the components of traffic which would use the connection. The layout component of traffic would be generated by the Regional Center itself. The accommodation of project traffic would not warrant a "through street" in the technical sense, but rather a well planned on-site circulation system which provides convenient access in and out of the site and a contiguous access system within the site. This means that all portions of the site would be conveniently accessible from all other portions of the site without the need to use off-site arterial streets. This could be accomplished without the construction of an east-west public street connecting Ynez Road with Margarita Road. Components of traffic imoh~ing non-project traffic passing "through" the project were identified based first on a minimum travel path criteria, and secondly on a possible perceived travel titre savings (avoidance of heavily used intersections and roadway segments). Figures 9a through 9f illustrate the principal through traffic components which would be likely tb use the east-west connection. These through traffic components are presented in order of their relative magnitude. O 9 0 0 c s 9 V E 0 O \J b W C 0 7 U 0 O O y C W C 0 ~, s w 5 E 0 0 0 0 O O d Y C ~` d W C y~ b _W V E O O L r .7 9 O Based on the configuration of the area street network, and an assumed "direct routing" through the project, the most attractive routing of through traffic using the east-west facility (Component A) would be between General Kearney and the Winchester Road interchange (see Figure 9a). Component B of the through traffic would consist of traffic traveling between General Kearney Road and north Ynez Road (see Figure 9b). Traffic routing Components A, B, and C would make up the major portion of through traffic using the east-west street since these three routing patterns are the on routing alternatives which result in a shortened travel path when using the east-west connector street. Through traffic Components D, E, and F (depicted in Figures 9d through 9f) represent other possible routings which may be "perceived" by motorists as being shortcuts (or more convenient) even though they result in longer travel distances. Of the three principal components of through traffic, Componenu A and B would result in reduced turning movements at the Mazgarita Road/Winchester Road and Mazgarita Road intersections wlu7e turning movements would increase at the Ynez Road/Pahn Plaza Driveway intersection. Overall it is estimated that the traffic volumes on Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Mazgazita Road would be decreased by an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 O vehicles per day with the east-west street. While decreases in traffic volumes on Winchester Road can be beneficial, the section of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Mazgarita Road is not considered a critical section (as is the portion between Mazgazita Road and Winchester Road). Potential negative impacts of the traffic redistnbution could more than. offset the positive impacts. As can be noted in Figure 9a, the principal component of through traffic projected to use the east west connector street would result in increased left-turn movements at the northbound Ynez Road approach to Winchester Road. Based on our EIR Traffic Study the northbound left-turn movement is a critical movements at this intersection and wd1 be required to accommodate heavy left-turn volumes being generated from within the Ynez Road corridor. In our judgement it would be better to accommodate this traffic at the westbound approach (through lanes) than encourage more traffic to use the northbound left- turn on Ynez Road. O 10 Based on our assessment of this issue we find that: O 1. The proposed east-west facility would accommodate primarily project related traffic; 2. Project related traffic could be accommodated by a well planned on-site (non-public) circulation system; 3. Not many of the traffic movements in the area would likely be attracted to the connector road; 4. Traffic routings encouraged by the east-west connector street would actually exacerbate the critical traffic movements at the heavily used Ynez Road/Winchester Road intersection; and 5. Through traffic found to be served by the proposed facih'ty could be accommodated in a more effective manner on the currently planned arterial street system. O O 11 0 ~~~~~~ O O O O 1985 xCN: UNSI GNALiZED IdTERSEtt10d5 ~~ PaBe-1 evaeeesev IDEdTI FTidG IdFORdATIOJ AVERAGE RUddidG SPEED, pAJOR STREET.. 60 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9s AREA POPULATIO`J ...................... 250000 BANE DF .THE EAST/HEST STREET......... ACCESS DRIVE7lAY BANE OF TXE dORTX/SMN STREET....... YdE2 ROAD BANE DF TXE ANALTST ..........:....... RAD DATE OF TXE AIIALT515 (om/dd/yy)...... 70-22-7992 TINE PERIOD AdALYZED ................. P.N. PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORNATIOd.... BUILD-OUT COdDTT ICJ ALL K0VENEdTS PERNITTED 2dTERSEC7J0J TYPE Ado COJfTROI IdTERSECTI0`A TYPE: T•IdTERSECTI0'J 1NJOR STREET DIREtt IOd: dORTX/SIX1TN CWITROL TTPE tlESTBOUlID: STOP SIGd TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB FRI RB SB LEFT -- 45 0 90 TXRU -- 0 1312 835 RICxT -- 75e <s o dID78ER OF LANES EB dB dB SB LANES -- 2 2 2 O ADJUSTNEdT FACTORS ____________________________________________~~e-2 O VERCEXT RIGHT TURd CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATIOd LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGXT TURNS FOR RIGXT TURKS EASTBOUND --'° __• ___ 1$STBOUND 0.00 90 ZS d d0RTX8a1ND 1.00 90 20 d SOUTXBOUND -1.00 9D 20 N VENT CLE C0:IPOSITION X SU TRUCKS % COyBINATI0J AdD RV~S VENlCLES % t;OTORCTCLES EASTBOUND _.. ___ ___ NESTBOUND 2 0 0 dORTXBOUND 5 0 ~ 0 SOUTNBOUND 5 0 0 CRITICAL GALS O TABl1LAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGXT DSST. F1NAL (Table 10.2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR .RIGHTS fW 5.90 S.CO 0.00 S.GO MAJOR LEFTS 58 5.70 5.20 0.00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS HB 7.60 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING SdFORMATICJ NAME OF THE EAST/UEST STREET...... ACCESS DR IVEHAT BANE OF THE NORTN/SOUTN STREET.... YdEZ ROAD DATE ARD TINE OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10-22-1992 P.N. PEAK HOUR OTNER 1NFORNAT IOd.... BUILD-OUT CORDITION ALL MOVEMENTS PERMITTED O O CAPACITY ARD LEVEL-Of-SERVICE Doge-3 DOTER- ACTUAL FLOy- TIAL C9dEpEUT SNARED RESERVE RATE CAPAC(TT CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITT COVERERT v(peph) C (pepfi) t (peph) t (pcph) C = c - v LOS p b SX R SX RIROR STREET E$ LEFT 68 Tt 66 66 ~ -1 F RIGHT 168 b% b% b% 328 B RA.IOR STREET Sa LEFT 92 213 213 213 121 D IDERTIFTIRG IRFORRATIOd gApE OF 7NE EAST/FN:S7 STREET...... ACCESS DRIYE((AT RARE OF THE RORTX/SOUTX STREET.... TRE2 ROAD DATE AND TIpE OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10-22-1992 ; P.p. PEAK IaLIR OTHER IRFORWIT I O:i.... BUIID-OUT CO`.JDITI0.Y ALL C.OVEpERTS PERRITTED O O 1985 NON: UdSiGNAL12ED 1dTERSECTIORS POBp-1 IDENTI FYIdG IdFORNATI05 AVERAGE RUNNING SPEW, NA.IOR STREET.. 60 PEAK XWR FACTOR ..................... .95 AREA POPULATIO`A ...................... 250000 BANE OF TXE EAST/NEST STREET......... ACCESS DRIVEHAT BANE OF TXE d0.4TM/SDI7TX STREET....... YNEZ RQAD NAME OF TXE ANALYST .................. RAD DATE OF TXE ANALYSIS (uu/dd/yy)....,, 10-ZZ-7992 TINE PERIW ANALYZED ................. P.N. PEAK NOIR OTHER IdFORNATION.... BUILD-OUT CD`mITlO.Y ; HESTBOUdD (OUTB~) LEFT-TURN PROHIBITED 1NTERSELTIOk TYPE AND COSTROI O INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION gAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTX/SOJTX C071TROL TYPE NESTBOUdD: STOP SJGd TRAFFIC YOLIDIES EB FAi dB SB LEFT -- 0 0 90 TNRU , -- 0 1312 835 R1GNT -- 158 65 0 NUMBER OF LANES EB !~ dB SB LANES -• 1 2 2 O ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---___ Loge-2 PERCERT RIGNT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATIOM LANE GRADE ANGLE fOR RIGNT TORUS FOR RIGNT TURNS EASTBOUtID _____ ___ ._. _ UESTBOUND 0.00 90 25 M NORTx901RID 1.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND -1.00 911 20 N VEHICLE CO.YPOSITIOM X SU TRUCKS X LOriBINATION ARD RV~S VEHICLES X KDTORCYCLES EASTBOUND __• __• ••_ 11ESTBOUND Z 0 0 NORTHBOUND 5 0 0 SDUrxeouND 5 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FIRAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS UB 5.90 i.LO 0.00 S.GO MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.70 5.20 0.00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS UB 7.60 7.10 0.00 T.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATIOM NAME OF THE EASTJUEST STREET...... ACCESS DRIVEtlAY NNME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... TNE2 ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10-22-1992 P.M. PEAK HOUR OTHER INfORMATIOM.... BUILD-OUT LO:JDITIOM ; UESTBOUND (OUTBOUND) LEFT-TURN PRONIB)TED 0 O O O CAPACITY AXD LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Po9e-3 POTEd- ACTWLL FLGI- TIAL KOVEpEdT SNARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY C.OVEdEBT v(peph) c <peph) a (pcph) c (pepA) e o e - v LOS P d SN R SX dIXOR STREET FR LEFT 0 RIGNT 165 4% A% > 6% > 328 > B pAJOR STREET SS LEFT 92 213 213 213 121 D IDEXTIFT IdG IdFORWIT10d dAgE OF THE EAST/IffST STREET...... ACCESS DRIVEHAY O gAXE OF TXE dORTN/SOUTX STREET.... YNE2 ROAD DATE AXD TIXE OF TXE ANALYSIS..... TO-22-1992 P.d. PEAK N01JR OTXER IXFORpAT10N.... BdI LD•OUT COYDITI O`J HESTBWRJD (OLRBOIRiD) LEFT-TURd PROIIIBI TED O c ~,~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~7EI~~N]GA IE~IEQaII®RI~I[. ~IE1~TIl'1~8, ~9ffiV~~~~'IDf8 ffi~.II~~ Al`~Tlm ~~ 1E5 t~~ur~,~ n~, n~s~ O O wll~ura sn~IT~+ ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS ~ PLANNERS r 3600 tIME STRFEI RIVERSIDE CA 92501 (909) 27G-0566 FAY. (909) February 18, 1993 Mr. Raymond A. Casey, P.E. Principal Engineer land Development Department of Public Works Ciry of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Final Traffic Issues Regarding Temecula Regional Centet, Winchester Hills, and Campos Verdes. Dear Ray: O Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has prepared the following Addendum material which addresses specific traffic impact issues discussed at our February 12th, 1993 meeting. The Addendum material responds to the following requests made by you and your staff: 1) Clarification of on-site circulation system recommendations for the Temecula Regional Center project. 2) A summary of off-site roadway improvements which need to be constructed in order to adequately accoaunodate the vehicle trip generation limiu set for the first year of project implementation. 3) An assessment of the effects of eliminating the General Kearney Road extension on Urban Core Project traffic impacts. The following sections provide a discussion of these remaining issues. O ALBANY. NV • ALLIANCE. OH • CAIRO. EGYPT • CHARLESTON. SC • COLUMBIA. SC • COLUMBUS. OH .DES MOINES. IA • FALLS CHURCH. VA HONG KONG • HOUSTON. TX .'KNOXVILLE. TN LEXINGTON. KV LONDON. ENGLAND LOS ANGELES. CA MIAMI. FL NEENAH. WI NEW HAVEN. CT OAKLAND. CA ORLANDO. FL PITTSBURGH. PA PORTSMOUTH, NH PROVIDENCE. RI RALEIGH. NC RICHMOND. VA • RIVERSIDE. CA-.~ROSELLE. IL • SAN FRANCISCO. CA • SAN JOSE. CA . SINGAPORE • TOROMO. CANADA WASHINGTON. DC EAAPLOYEE•OWNED COAAPANY ®n-site Circulation System Recommendations 1~or 'II'emecula Regional Center O The original traffic study prepared for the Temecula Regional Center was based on a Specific Plan site layout which included anorth-south on-site roadway running from Winchester Road to Overland Drive. This project road, in essence, represented the boundary between Specific Plan Sub-Areas I and 2, and was intended to serve internal circulation needs of the project. As discussed in our recent meeting, the elimination of this on-site roadway would not change the findings of the original traffic study (e.g. the projected distribution of site traffic) as long as the future on-site circulation system maintains "continuity" in its' internal network of primary circulation aisles/roads. In this manner, all portions of the future developed site would be internally accessible to vehicular traffic once on the site. Similarly, on-site traffic would be able to exit the site via any of the perimeter access intersections from any point on the site. The importance of on-site circulation system "continuity" is that it significantly reduces the impact of project traffic on arterial roadways adjacent to the site. There is an infinite number of specific on-site circulation system configurations which would satisfy the network "continuity" requirement, and it would be premature to recommend a specific layout at this stage of site planning. At this time, WSA recommends that one or a combination O of the following design concepts be used: ~ Perimeter Ring Road Concept -This concept, which is commonly used for traditional regional mall layouts, provides an on-site access restricted circular road near the outer perimeter of the site. The ring road, which generally surrounds the mall core and adjacent parking areas, distributes traffic to and from principal access points on the site rather than along the arterial streets. o Radial Road Concept -This internal circulation concept provides for on-site traffic distribution within large commercial centers where a traditional mall-type core does not exist. In this case, a radial network of on-site roads distribute traffic to a number of smaller clusters of commercial nodes. In the case of the Temecula Regional Center, the ultimate internal circulation system may include a combination of these two circulation design concepts. Regardless of which circulation design concept is applied, primary circulation aisles should be designed with a higher degree of access control to reduce vehicle conflicts and maintain positive flow characteristics. Parking should also be restricted along primary circulation aisles wherever possible. O 2 O ®ff--Site IItoadway Impt-o®ement Stimmaty lFot' IFiest Fear (Y993-Y99~) Y'roject atnplementation As identified in the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan (refer to October 15, 1992 "Traffic Issues" lener addressed to Mr. Righetti), the following off-site circulation system ~- improvements would be required to accommodate 1994 background traffic l~us vehicle trip generation limits set for the fast year of Urban Core Project irnplementation: ^ A minimum two-lane improvement (extension) of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road (related to_TRC, WH, and CV); ^ Implementation of Margarita Road, as four-lane Arterial, from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to WH only); ^ The widening of Winchester Road to six lanes, between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to (related to TRC and CV); ^ The widening of Ynez Road to six lanes, between Overland Drive alignment and Rancho California Road (related to TRC, WH, and CV); ^ Extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment (related to WH oNy); ^ Four-lane improvement of General Kearney Road from new Margarita Road alignment to Easterly limit of Campos Verdes project (related to CV only); ^ The widening of Solana Way to four lanes, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road (related to CV only); ^ New signal installations on Winchester Road at Margarita Road, Nicholas Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to TRC, WH and CV); and ^ The installation of a new signal on Margarita Road at Solana Way (related to CV only). Note that each of the above roadway improvements has been related to the individual Urban Core Project(s) which impacts the need for that improvement. The identified roadway improvements would only be needed if one or more of the related projects actually experience O 3 development activity during the first implementation year. Fair share implementation O responsibility, by the individual Urban Core Projects, for the identified 1994 roadway system improvement needs would be as previously assessed by WSA. It is WSA's understanding that requested information regarding the extent to which transportation related mitigation measures identified for the Urban Core Projects (at project build-out) are covered by roadway improvements already included in A.D. 161 and C.F.D. 88-12, is being provided to you by RBF. The timing of off-site roadway improvement needs identified in the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan for subsequent implementation periods (years) would be checked and verified through initiation of the recommended project-related impact mitigation monitoring program. Impact ®f 'The Elimination CDf (seneral I{earney Road ]Extension WSA has reviewed the effects of not extending General Kearney Road on the Urban Core Project traffic study findings. Some of the impacts related to this issue have already been reported in previously submitted traffic study addendum documents. A summary of earlier O reported findings as well as more recent assessments is presented below. ^ The resulting re-distribution of project-related daily traffic flows (at project build-ou[) would result in an additional 800 project trips on: Margarita Road (between General Kearney and Winchester); Winchester Road (between Margarita and Nicolas); and Nicolas Road (between Winchester and General Kearney). ^ Implementation responsibility for the combined Urban Core Projects would increase by approximately 2 percent or less on the affected segments of Margarita Road and Winchester Road. ^ Implementation responsibility previously identified for the General Kearney Extension would be eliminated. 4 O 0 I trust that this supplemental information will assist you and your staff in your review of the Urban Core Projecu. If you have any questions regarding this material please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely yours, Wilbur Smith Associates - /~ ~(~ ~ (C nQilJw~' Robert A. Davis Associate O O 5 O ~,~~ O O a m M 9~~~~, Qr ~ Q' y d r O V ~ ~ ~ ~ U `~a.~~ m m~ ms~p~" °' ' ; °' ~ '°nm9 ~ 'O " M O e e °c s g °'°~U o,a ~ $ ~ ~ $~ O ~' y m ~Z m ~ v n `fi~C q ~ .. ~ 5 0 `o ~ v _ OD d ++ @ ~ ~ ° 2 V•Omi~~~ ~~ e' _ ~9 O p~~i a ~ ~~ O'O' e. 3€ ~ $€ ~ e ,~i E 9d E~ Cin .~E .C a ~.' " d .d O q v 'O .+ y '~ a ~"' Z Z 8 3 8 ' 8 ' 3 V m d ~ OS .a pp mZ EO E~ E~ EC EO CZ O 0.~.ar 17 a z F~ F~ f F~ F~ om o ~ a y Sg ~a ~a ~3 ~aa o3 ~p d 0~ m 10 t~ O Y Y Y a Y u. 'L d ~ try a•0 OGg E.~~ A~° E`o° L.~$ t`~$ ~dy 'O d p7ppp ~ ~ CSsfi Bo.~ CS~~ Uo.E Ga.E 7 p ~ !0 ~ m y w ~ ~~ a~ po y a m $,~`~ O Z e G 8 ~ee ggd s ~~N 4y000~y ~ ~€ ~ e$9p ®$ C~e O ~G ~E ~~~ ODp O.yy~~ ~ c~ ~ em o? o$~ .fl mb ami ~ ~ dm o- dv co ih. `o O~ d y y a y 4r LE aap o.. 8 ~'^!.m L. C/~ O ae~Ei` ~c `oii ~~o e~r~9c~ f 1 WC~ e p Cf O O C~ ~ 9 C r 0 V I~ O O' y eL o 2 !S 47 2 ~ o ~ ,~ .d OC :.a '~ ~~'fl m ~ o°e e? m`~~O ~E ~ de,g~ u ® ;~ 00 d ~ ~ GJ •: 60 ~ m O .: p .•S o a ~S o ~ ~ ~ o o S ~' ~ ~ m d G ~~y'.~ eiE $5yG9 ~~~$ua ESQ $e~$~ m E ~~ m ~ s~ e$ E S o S e~ 8 ~~ ~ •-° ~~~ C 5~~$ p 0 IyO~ Q F. V FQ ZS~E= ?~$~~_°u was go ~=5° u~ ~ {".' Oyy~ E 020o g~3~ ~~3 ~~m~°ts o~ auc`u .~ 1~ $-° ~ a =11y av. .:'n-u ~.cra E aEorv EEmL' via~~8 ~8 wm~ ~ ~.~ d ay a ~E° ~ aym~~o~ m2e .g a O ~ O ~~•~y d ~ ~ y~~ 4 b 'b a d~ G d Z a p °@ fi uu " v° e .~ 9 ~ Y w ' ~ ~ tb .0 .""O.~ B ~~ V ~ O~Es O ~y fPi aGL O Itl a~ a .:g E$ r~ wiS Z O a ~a O e ~ ~ ~ 50~ ~~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ d ~ ° ~ e ° ° - `o_ ~~ ~$ 3€ 3€ N ~ L ~ d mz ~p @ ~p Ep ~p ~O grGZp•d `03 ~ `03 `03 `03 `03 V V Y ~ V ~ ~a ~ = e $a ~ yea ~ $a ~ ~ ~ ~ UiE F8 Uo'.E UiE ~iE F3 a. mE ~~ zm r ~~ m @ ~ ae c" Cal ~ m° y ~ ~'~," ° 6 ~ _°o °o S ~" , ~ 0 y ~ SO Y Y £ ff o~g om oe3€ ae ae aC yp,f i~ to.O.~i e a a o e es' = °a m `o ~n ~ o Y t3q `d :n b `u °~ 03 °•`- a Xme'oC oX ~._, Y ~~ mOp Y Y C m C Y Y Y''~ O {i~ V ~ O V Y i 0 ~' ~ O ~' ~ m Y a m. Y y°L C .p' ~ C ~' < Ev See ~ e ma 8"~ ,~;s ~oe~ 3~s aE a~aaae~ 3_cSxr Y C C Y Y Y Y Y Y V Y \~ r~ Y~ ~~~ V N •! u ~' ~ e c ~a ev~ p ~9 e~S y-~ E6o '~._a ~ ~$ c _ y ~ m "o es a Ea~gg ,'o_o S,Ceg 'E u•mi e~T+s Y- drY Z -eop e~ay@u< C @ tv E`o EG~a :`ya e~- Ey~.L@m6o ~LYCpLrm ~~c ~' °i u•±.°o~ e~ ~ u= ~ ~a ~' ~~ ~€ 9~~~ LFx NG`y'°'Y° Q ~~ ~ ~'S~ 2~ a ~~ ~~?~ot ° a= a o V r 0 ~ 0 e ~ ~ r ='C m O e 0 0 ~ E a u s O C m O Y p E e u o ~° a~ ~. ~@ ~ E~~ m @ `o ~ D ma m m 7S u_ o L i ~ c s g@ ~ u °~ y .oi o ~L,C E ~~ u~ a C y@ ~ ~e e s m O Y e 3 p o v ° e .~ ~ o. e t a a ro t gT' u~ C 'C Y S E u o ~. a FF xxY .4 m y L` a °QQ~'~ pp v m A a ~.'L ~ L'~ s •6 ~ ep `u '2 C E G~ qYq S^. Y u~°y Y o r~ u~ o Q h is u II 3~ e a U v u L' ~ U m'QU C ~ $$ ~S.m~~~ •°.°_e Pi L: ~ m .6 C 6F V ~'Z F r~. mY @ a Y Y m O 'J~~~Q'1 $Yay! Y F L ~ $ _ Y EC C fi O C _ ~ O ; ~ e 2 o r O O O 0 F ~~ a ~~ <__o µW~ $ m Nz ~ n~ 'b g m ~E$ e o g d G d `o o a $~ `o `a ~ h ~~g ~~ °' E~ ~~ ~~~ m ~ § 3 @~ ~i Easy s$ ~i ~i `oZ m m Z Y O~ Y O Y~ V O Y O gC~ f~ F~ F~ ~~ ~~ p ° C zd `03 ~ E S3 'S3 `03 33 O ij Y V V Y F E,-y eg$ t,a u Da u P~ u r,y ~ U o'. E~ C7i E Gs E Ui E Ui E `o o `0 8. ~ E ~ ' ~ 8 Z~ s ~ ~~=~ =9~~' ~ ~~ ~~ ~'2 g~ °~ ~d~? ~~ (~ !~ Y y B Ty y G G ~ GO d C - 'J ~~ 0 C u Y E ~O C _ VJ C q `o° ~ Q `o m m. `o.°- E c `o~ E a° e c E S E i0 O `o iE coo im $ E oZ.G ~ o e o o ~~ m 'o a c ~~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ao v °`. ~ = E ~ E II i~ C ~ o m : a.8 a..V. > $ ai a. CPE OL 4~ i& CQ E ~~QCQ c c 26p 3~ N a V ~f ~ ~D O ~A O 1~ m C. moue g S ~ {o E.o eua.u eEu -yi,R y sr eu a u ib~ oa°.O Yc YaaS $o'e ~a g~y~mc a pEm'e Y y~= ~"7 6'~ ~aE m.Y ~°.r32}'+, ~~ ~-°aY5 9Y'rYOE=ry GE YiV °F-Ym V b ,c FCC e ~ m Y `o € w V~ y .~. L Q. 0 4 O u u E O Y u~~ v '~ r O Q j e= '~~' ^ E u O e a E C.~ m 4_ E ~-iO o uy `r E - c~ : o g:° S~ E a a 0 ca'O'E o. ~ o £~ °"_g~~~ Bpa°.$ e3' (~jYCe'o c$°eE c~~'~¢~~~~_ ~+: ef~ au~g $u'!~!'oS`Qeyyo-Stp om=~'L p'p°-°em CEO ~` x~OuE 9 g L' ~° C 3 e6 u> n a~ 'a 6~ O Yi .: a g o g 8 s o 8 5~ pL 0 o C3 a S.Y. t. O ~: o o e co ~ ~ ° 7 e ~ $ e r ~ :° -° Sa yB Z~I '~ Y ~s SI v~ ° ~3 ~~ ~EH gy ~• via~6 .e .?e r2 0 U a O E b" v o s ~ j~J e ~ a GGFF77 fprl~' ,S o O ° ° ~ `o `o ° o a~Q 8y p ;~:~ s ~yFF e~ E:~ O ~ G ~ C pp D ° C C., 9 E a Y V Y 'J ~i ~'Q Cri o E ~d ~a zy mz~ 6p ~p ~~ ~O ~O ~p zg Fty F~ F~ F~ F~ Fey gz `03° `03 'a3 's3 'a3 `03 6 ?.` ~ Y ~..~ ~ y ~ G Y ~' y Y ~' 3 V ~' ~ Y CZa E Uo~ E Ui E C~7 e. E Uo. E Uo. E `o a `o B.~ 0`8 o`ti ~ ~ `o ~~ Za7 g °~ g_, ado : 3_ ~aa. a_ ~..~ -a, ~~- C~ ~ ° a 2 2 ° B° a E° E _ y c a g~ ° a c i0 D `° i6. °oo~ $ E ea im off. m' a1L °oo o~ ~ o o` E ~ ~ ~ ~ u •r, ~¢ s m p e _ _N qq jj ° C ~° ° V 'J ° O 0 ° s W r y a ~,.` °°~ 9 C uy ac ~ ~'esQ ams ams o.~ ~~ESo'~yg~ ri hL $ ~„~ ~ O Y N 6 C Ai C .a . !-' E u~ yy yea ady w`oE~ w:Cg a °~Cg a:~.a ~6E a'H vi ~$ b E~~ n 9~ e s r i~ x O ~ 'g N ZCj, Q P ~i9..4 y ° C ad V N G. ~° V L V O O O C O V f $ d y G 'Q O C L' 9 o-av o S mE w e~ ° ~ 3, -~S vy E $` o ~ ~ Z ~ ~~ ° e u U .~ ' g' ~ E ~ ~ ~ n ~ y U 8 £ e ..~ 'u o ~ rr '~~eF Y. .e° `d o~ v N G •E °° a t e o c y~j $ o. a ~~ i ~ ~E ~ yo o u ° O F s . o c ~~ €~C €~! Z Nay s$ ~ Gi aeEa °;Eo$ Z ~~•• O Ca O "a pu e ~ 3 C ~ ~ m SO~t m e ~ °' ~ E e ~ ~ ~Q ~~ ° ~~ c ~ 3€ ~ ~€ ~d ~:~ 9d ~ i 8 8. 8 ~~ Z E~' E~ E~ E~ =Q~ F m F~ F'~ f~ SS GGZO aaas `o c= `03' 'S3 S3' Y Y Y Um0 ~J O~ E i3o E tai ~ c m ~ n O O O m C C O Z G~~ Y V C ~ :° :'~ ~d E o~~4 a= s" ~~ f~ ooE=~ =E `os i8 e°. m'$Ea Da im OGm • Y V ~ iY' r~ C O G O Y O 1 G7 C O Y Y L G O C~ NTTTTT O~ w, $~ L ` ® JJ~~ m ~ ~ e0 ~ ~ m C~ m M ~ 9 UVl G~• ~r ~~ ^ m a y o.e aU e E 6mi S e u. g ~ ~1 m ~+ ~ u E Y o c o u e~.s :memaa9~ eo ~~L a~fiE =ao~ hd Floc=`o$_L °- oe a a~_o °. °Y .~o x~~~_~~ 05~~~~~e Z~ ~g;~$~~ G~eoas D~r G ~ ~a Y $'i Q~ 9 e e o~ 0 •'• ' = ~ ~ d Y c ~ o.g~o.~G~ m`y~E~~~i m E ° o ~~++ ~ SAC ~ o ~~~3 .". a ~$`d ~ o m E E~~ ~s `o ~g 8p Br OE p 6z E E O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ r Y ` r ~ G ° ~~~~ as=~ a eY uL•~ Eu ~ Z O F O ~~ m m `O e e e ~ c ~ o ~ o ~ 'o o e g ~ W~ C~ o ;~ m g ;~ m ~~ I c€ `o c o `o ~ c o `o ~ 3° 3~€ ~B x~ € g E ~ ~ € ~m .96 C(A .96 ~. CN ~ L L u c - L ° L L m L - L L ~7 O ,a~ $ E m a g ~ a ~$ ~$ u G ~~ mZ YpE" mE Ep ~p ~p ~~ ~C ~C Za~ F~ i, $ F~ F~ F~ F,~ F~ F~ g.~~zp.• o3vmp o3 03 03 'E3 03 `°3 y° ~. y Y .~l u u ~'~ L`~ ~.8 L`~ ~ i`~ ~ E`er ~ L`~ u ~`~ u ~'~ u Ua E P, f9i C7 o. E 'U a. E E7 o. E U"o. E Uo. E Uo. E 0 0 0 O O g.'~ O p a l C o g.'a O p Yi •- _g ~ ~ E ~ p y o •- m E~ omom om 3$u~a om'~e oPP. ge~° omE~a "t ~ e o o N r n e E= :~ ° e N a G E m m °- C e C -~ C C C ~ e u c -a E~ ~Q '°a o c° e aGi c ~a Y v e a V am aV G. I% ov a.m $ E a r° o. ~. oo e.m. mo o u o ~^p c~ ~ ~ ° e E v 5 pp c ~ m h m o d e C a m~~ V y c °o_ ~~ a c 3 m~ _ E .°_ a, m A rY r~G~ E~ 6 'c Y ~. g, Y G 2 ~ti 'a' °~@ ~ a y°~ i~q ig~ o:go o:s~ cg 2~ °m':E a'~y2 O. 20. N Ed C Af ~ G ^i ` fi ed C .^.fi '.~.'D Imo do°C~ °E ~"+`o~ ~aCg V Q Y V my ~ Y FY ~' r~ ,~ m ~ m C Y .4 q O m a g s ~ r .°. gy o c ~. ° B ~~ a ~- .g ~ `G' = pE p9 0 $' c E o e a` °~ p Y i5 ~ Y s `o_ a o Y ~ E CJ •- -t-' ~ Y Z p_ o m ! E `o Y a_ m .~ E e E$ =- 6` $, e L - Y Q m G CG V i' g~~0~ 9 qL G OOr. ~vW YC Y ` D. ,~ O O~ m O, v Fp 9 ~ ~9r oc ~~E C C7 ~ ~ o [Y E ~' .y °C 6 .e u a E M e ~ e O e L v e ~ 2i. ~ ~ E a H ~ ~ C ~ Y a fi Y Y. 6 E S a Y Y° S ~ C 0 Y v y O {L m ~_ ``Y. Y ~f l~AY mgYg px ~`=-eEvE ~Y E F`~LVLGyJ~,~y,~_E G • Y• O 6 r 0. e ~ m ll--~~ _ E r y~1 a~ ~ V> C e C E ~G Y Y V w Y C ° 6• G G ~ ~ 6 ° y 0 6 p u ~_ Q C e ~ O Erna ^p•Oa 5'~ S°, 'vE~o2eEeau +v:~a. ~~a3 C>E~~.3a ~= ~g'.1 ~a ag O e~ w e SCY. a L' au O r O yG g4 yy 6 ~s e S np.4 SR ~ Y °~ cl f e E Y rmg 'Lm `' g a; O ~~ ~'v a m'og ~~ E~ ~ ~ 5, ~ ~~3 :~E ~ seS =c"a 0 U O ~a W ~ s E: s vi z, ~ $ m' ~ 'S g m' m Ea ~s ~s n~a fl ~ Ep~ ~ afl~a~ ~~pp }°}gg g ~°g G N .ld E CN .~L .i d m C a tiqq' d Zqq' a ~q' o =p' a ° S ° G m. S S V mppZ Ep E~ Ep E~ E~ EY Z C F •~ F '~ F '~ f '~ F '~ F gZd oa oa ~sa oa as o~ ~! V V V Y y C C AMY Any A~~ A~~ Any AO Uo.E Ci o.E C•34E Oa.~ Cf a.E Cia `o g ~ `o $ °e , c a 8 ~ `o o °e . `o O E; oB°a om'~E -° oB~a om'E` sm rj ~ e Y ~ u y Y- e u 9 $ e i4'. ov ~m° ~ Eg ~ iti `ov im° $ E~i cm o~ o m a o m o ~~ ~ e o ~~ ~ e ~ f m y m? C ~~ m N m 9~ q ~ ~~ a m° t E °e m= L ~i Y _~ G Y O~ V Y~ G Y O Fj V y2 ~2 o:-e o:-2 s'gp VJ L O, ~ ~ fV ~ C 1~1 ~ C ~ O fV ~ C IM V G ,,y~ m :b mo 'b m~C~ d. E mho .~. m~Cg n c 3u ~Ey~OE Q~~~.£~y wY'FL~`o E'~'s ~AOU a`Y-~.~~8 YO°c ~° p~.a~g qE ~ geC~1u E q°.'o O cE~Eo•G~ p oY~ ~~$$.. chi `t a=~a E;, r,~c -~S d ~~gF e° aY =4~Tici C~m o.~ae E~Eatp asE eta ~$YYY ~9 a~ E E a_5 F 5v YY { 8 r a8 Y2 O y ° a} v 9 $~g ~ 9 @~°" 3 E'e o a F !' c y ~ u" 3= e ~ y fi a ~ u r c i.~ E C q o e e ~ e $ o° v u ti E f' Y~ a- C Y ~.. c Y Y u F v ~~ e u g Y s .R E u Q m E ~'~ Y 4~ ~ a E f~ ~~m .t_.E~~.E 6mg'uE@~E~ m°~KoS~o.~~' mF'=`p~m QQ E i^ ^ Q ~° s ~~ ~ E pp ~ .. °c - g Eg ~° u m e m ~ A u u `~- o ~' L m ~ r'L 9 4y ~ 6 Y. 0.8..00. ~Cmo`o~aE EaSf•foEJt5 utR A:dSEu o~ S ' -° E 2c =d ° 'P m o e C y 6. Y G~~ ao L n E Y ~ q ° :°5s _fg~ Z O ~ O ~7 : ~_ C c a 5 vl Z p °~ m a~~ o0 0 .m ~ ~ e E :~ ~ &B a€ 6' N ~L w =q' w ~ V p• V ~ m= Y~y V~ CZ C E p f° e siZ•d `03 `o ~ E O y Z 0 f ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ CZ a. E UmC 'S~.-~~ °pey Z ~~ a ~ ~ ~ o a E ° '~' :. O C~ ~$ ~°i ~ c_ u~ ~.~ `oy ° e E~~ ° e ° ~- E °~. tr'. oo am $ E E u ~ e E v',Q E•. au= Lz a~E ~ ~ `o E °' ~ `o E V Q + m°C s~m~ a=. `O r`~s_ .` ~df~'~ ~~~ ~z ~ '~ `u a •S u e 'a ~ e d y~ •cp c E ~ g „°, ~~ u~ C ~ ~ E Z t ~ '~p'~ 't, ° L V E °a tl ~ a u°° a p r° ° ~. a o~ ~ o. u'p O e. r.°. a r o° oe ~~ E ~j' Q ~ u E~ c ~ ca yoai`E'v~C~~°a~a$CeBP~og n°w® °.: Ss a.~ o e e ° O E ~ ~~ ~ ° e O 6 d ~ =`~ ^~~ Z O U O ~ ~ ~r ~ ° e t 50~ m' $~ m' ~~g $ ~; $ ~ ~ ~; ~ g ~€ $ ~€ Y liim ~L m Y p ~ V Y 11 Y ~ Y. ~ P ° mZ EtR CE";' q ~VI C Z Y ZQ~ F c m ~ ° ° u >$ P- ~ ' G 3Fg a ~ QG` O' $ ~y ° ~ $ E yO ~~ ~_ O ?~ c S ~ ~ Y O 'B ~ ~ : '~ F um c o Z I 'Y.C3m c a 8 z r.~ O Z S mm _ g ~. C V~ y .9~ G S ~~`~ p~~~~ O 9 ~ O O S ~d G tlN. ° ` f f ~ o 0 y e m o r c u r o o E im' c c atz coo im'$E C C m o Y ~ Y Y O C Y u c ~' E c o m Y y ~ O u ~ Y~' E c U m m B 4 Y C ` m F= m t 6w L Y Y o m F 7 o a ~ ~hi ~.. a O O ~~ r,~ TC ~ Y . e= u tl- TT ~ B Y Y C i ~ u t~ Y C C U = U R m~ ~ E Z~ a° Fi a 5 E 6 ~i C u= e e~ °~ c? Q s m Q g e a~ .~°. 2 x, E m _`o 'g E~ ZC ~ '~ Y~ -c ~. e rE ~ ° mw v E c a P Be E. g ~ Q~ .. '~ a u o 8~~ •• ~ o Y$ ~ $ $o Eg ~ j ~. e 5 ^1'.a ~' ef"' ' EE y.. yy ~ ~ C° c ° E 'tO ° E .Y. `0 3 °u ~ o ° $~ ~ ° E .°. E '~ o' ° T m g~ 4 O $ C$ O ri i L . ~ m Y. y E_ C m 'Li p Y y r c m- ~ c m Z ~ ~ c u ~~ $ E.°. ° ° ~ O ~ c m e c `I d Z r Y C Y m O ~' ' h ~ e.. g dS .$ 2 _ P g °. d u ~ ~ .~c• Z O u ~~ O °° +_ c ~ W °- tr. .°- E C CL ° g. ' C7 O 5o m °~ m °° {d~~ o o; `o ° ° E OCQ u ~ m u O~ 9 G ~ BJy G ~ G 9 G ° C i C N A L ~ L ~ Y IL 3 i' L ~ C Z L ~~ ~~ ~ $ ~~ ~ $ ~ 8 ~ 8 m Z I E u~ u u m E O fi C gC~ ~"~ ~ F~ F ~ F'7 F~ Fi Zzod `o~c `03 'SmE 'S3 `03 `03 V ~' ~ V V V E7mC UaE UmC Ua.E UaE Uc6 `o `o E, s!~ $ c ~ `o `o e G Y 6 Y ~ C oo V N .~ € a ~ e ~ .~ 6 m ~ € ~ € 4 O Vl Y Y Y qy u 2 e m tl e e e m E ~ e 'm ' e r o ~' ~~ `o E a e am' aS~-. `oo gm E ~ o=.V aC7 D ~ c O O ~~~ u tl o C e e c ,- 'ag` ~~ Y6 6 m w . y Y~®~ o "y a s ~ ~ Y'xrYYO. a (~ S '~ O O T y h S Y T p ® >6 C p Y C Or {Yi Y V Y` Y v N ~ Y ~ 4. O 6i 0 O 11 B'daa= ~p° Sg' Er j,S_ E~ Q=°eow g~Oe ~ ~°o_~ u e p 'R~ 9~ E 6. Z e_ v ~"~ Qd V Y ~~ E ~~ S v _~ E a~ d~ m ~ Q~ O~ e c{.~77 V G ~ Y m S u~= op = gy m a.°_ G~ m a Y o Y ~ •r, Y E s o ~ ge a E's` u `0 6o~e V~ o° m ~° C ~ e•6 ~ ~ u a u ° r e C a r '~°L' ° e s a~ ~ 3~~ a 8 T p g ~~ mgTao~ E~a.a~eQ 'a ~, ~~'i~iE?a?Eg ~6~_YJ~u NE~E~~ '~~Y~30 ~. ~~~a ~38.i.EgEYO .'O a_°E`6 C ~~ ~ L O~° O ~ ° O w ` O p E ~ e e C e v 8 `o_ C 8~ u o o u. .$ [[V~~I q p a 47 ~ ~ ~ Y, 6~ o e a e ~ ~ ~ q3 ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ e ° Y ~ E 8 S B y~Q ~~ ~~ ~ a~ .fie eo _'_' :g G ~ ~ p L ;~ N h7 iL ~ O 1I~ ^'1 N ~ ~ N v ~ ~ O itl ~ O~ Y N O S Y Z O ~V O U ~ ~ ~`~ g~ SoCgl ~ ~ °~ ~t~g a 'e ~ e`o E E :-° ~< o o E~" ~s d E . E . ~ $ m~ E a z E~ E~ E O m gQ~ F£ Ft F~ 6~.~z.,ao. `03 `03 `03 0 y y ~ u f Amu P~~ tam t7 0. E C'S a. E C+ b' E ~ `o ° g. ~ of ~ ~ eSs v ~ ° °~ ~ g, c E. a s °B ~ m u y O Y C 4 L E O O T p q C C O L' y C i ~ Y y C E O E _ a ~r~ ~cLy~ ~a m`~~ vU uoEEy ~`o~ u!-t y8,~ L G Y p V y p Y y O` C h d C~ a V E E ~~~ E e g, O ry ~~_~ ~~~~ ro~~5 E E°€ ~ E oy ~ a f m c c° a ~ i ~_° 'c m O O 0 e~ C T'e '~ QI ~~~ 6 ~ ~ ~ v <~ ~ S 8~ g a~ o" c o 6 n E y s 2 m» `o n vj o •S ~1 Ee ~ //11 0 0 $ `o -~r~ ~ ~ e e c ~ ~ V C a L' 2~ Y 2 ~. ~' ~ a w O 0 0« a~ _g~ xm s° ~~~~ z°o c 2 c e u c'~ ° y 'o o ~ a o@ o c c 3Ea$2En°Soo~E`J+vE .~$EBB.9: CgSg e u 3 °' ° ~ '~. a ~ o o E c L ~ ° u ~ ~ y O z .~, ~ E ~ ~ m ~~ a yo YC 3 5Ys ie~'' p n o a 6 ~ ga $ Y N 9 P Z O F ~a O r r ° ~, x s o e e 8~ v e C ~ ~ a v p m m y ~ v ~ m C 50~ ~ ~ ~ ma ~~" O ~ O n `° O L' O O a g y ~ ~ V ~~ ~ 8 ~~ e •€ w w@ 3@ ~ y°ya € e ~ e` e= yya a ya Y ° _ i` _ Lam` Y ° Y Y ~a EC Ea' E~ EO E L ~ w Y ~~ ~~ m F F F F F~ tl E= E° F° . Z ° e e C ~~ ~ ~ a. a ~ w .. gzoa. 03 03 03 03 oc ~O~ ~~c °~~ Y ~ Y C ooC 9 O 6 ~ a Y ~ a Y~. a Y ~ a Y ~ s ~.~1 ~= U m 0 V m Uo. E C3 a. E U4 E Ue. E Fad `o c e ~ ~S `o `o `o `o Y °fi 'v '° Q Q ~ ~' e Y Y ~ Y ~ Y Y ~~ .~~ e2 e2 a .~€ .~,,~ ~~ ~~ ~ o e Q e e _ y a e v p 'C 'C 'C o .- o .~ O .~ o ._ d~ o < o 0 0 o.m o.m o.m ~m °`o e e `og'c eYo°y °e =rC V y m5'. ~°c u e ~ 8.~ `o E a 3 and _~ E ~tm~ a`m 6 E ~~jj,,r = Eo°C E ~ S ~ = o `o_ °$a fui7 O E u '~ Q 'wc w ~ e n T E r Y E w ,nom RY ym v,$ oGO o.~ O c v,~~ ~€mZ ~S2 ~BEc3 •E ,N}, Eqa ,.~ E ~ 'e . FE G ri u ° ',E, ., 2a pC ,,; u °~ u $ ~ s ~`o ~i E ~`J G~7 'm ~'^a e u ~n mU SECS .~ c = ee`o 4ti Y ~ u ~ a fi u.°.~ .1~Y ~ _t °9-'J~~ Z w ii Y E Y r i Y .C Y ~ Y Q Y yy „ i a p°p •C •C m e €~ ~ `e E g~ ~ ° w°° H a. ~ C C n ° a o . `d m F~ a: 3$ o Y u B °c ae Q o L$~ r c °c n ° ~ yg 2 ~'~' vi E e Y Q E Yon i, $ E ° w 'e '~ ~ 3 Q u E~ 9aOwggE9 _E.°. g~ 6ru8~$ = ~ u sE ~ E g O e a ~ a q E a i. s LY' ~ ,~ R `m 'S m„° ~ ~ ~ e . : ¢1 Ri a n 'o' : E ~ C~ C3 E E E u = ~n> $ Q n ° .°. e y O C C C ° Y gy~ Y ~ O '~ s w L a e E C e c a `_ `~ O Q u u [i~' ~ C C y e ° ° tZ F u E~ u E Y € w @ v f $~° Saeg OQ'~ W 5~` ~~ m O ~ u°' a °i e u r u Q fV m 0 °i a .o. ° e 'u Z wl ° ,n o ~ Z O U O ~a g ~ ~ = m soap `°~ o a. ~ s ~~~ °s ~ ` .~ E ` ~ E ~ 6 Y r' ~ e C (n 6 E E• -. O t 9 C -° Z 9p L 9 Y V S Y S L Y S C ,mz EO E~ p E~ Er Z~~ F~ ~~ F~ F~ F~ gzs `03 'S 3' Y3 `o$ 'd m W V V Y ~ C ~A. L Y E~~ y Ai ~ C E`.G V A. O iii E i3 e. E t74 ~ ai E Bs _g.~ _gg g°~ OZ Z 67 a `o - e s E~ ~~ o ~ ~~ o;~~a ogeA ~~ a em - y tl m Y,~ C p C - C ~~ ~ °e e u 'OG u E a~ ~ a o ° E dScv e.08Ea Cm O i0 o y o~ m m C a ° Y C C L. R Y C D tl v) ° - O O ° V ° a-' ~`~ ~ ~ fi ~Q:~~ U~ Y ~i 6 Y~ .Y. Y P a-m (y' -L'L f~l 6.C Y YY6 H }~' _ G4 w~ ° o n tl~E nS e¢i E wn a6O 66rEL Z ~~ g ° a ~ t m E tl E e a° 0 3"$ o z z £ E~ e~ pp p ~ ~Sg 7751 h 9, .. 5 ~ m a e~ ~~ x ~ a k E s, e ~ p ° r ~ ~° ~ m E~ Yy~~eG~ °~ x "m ~.9 ep9y ~3a ~~+TS ~~,y~ ~55 G S b O .~ u Y tl m Y° 'g~ Y O °- p t O V P y> 4! p V a a °~~ a ep L m° G `° g E Y e o u E ~ m QE ~-m SS.~~: ab' a'J e~$6oa ~'So a.=i E~Eo3~`o aae~~. ~t$~ ~ ~ C {. 8 Q ~ ~ 6 Y E Z ~~S es~ =~ _`s O~~ _ ~ ° ~~ ~ == E~ _ =a, ~- ~ a~ e ~ o i, ~ u dS o. ~ ~ i ° 4 ~~~ d ~_~ ~g~ 0 ra Ca O V Y ~ (t7 ~ ~ V C ~ 5 3 Z ~~~ •a` ~ ~ aka v ~ Yeti d ^ e ° 2 a € b `o y b b V o Ae ~ 0 3 Z oCl' Y o 0 m pZ Y'' E 1' _ ~. = . ~ S 8 Y ~ ° V Y (So °~~° OG ~ ~: u ~ as 6`w a ~a H 3 a •~ a '® zm oz 6 6 3 ~~ ~ ~ .~ € O 6 6 00 O ~ C ~ 9 O - O D i m' m o `o e c a ° ~y fi m~ a m y C ~ C ~~ y _o e E e m ° 3~ m y~ o~o c9~ oY. ^' `o ^ ~ 4 ~ ~ E ~ a ~ r Y Y ~ tl ~~ Y V • C9 L Y • ~ Y~ Y ,~ V ~'C `o~u~L'o E~`'4.° 3oe~:~ ~E~Ei~tl'3 ~~°m oe ~q6 ~.gg_L Q~ z Lid Y~ q Y •"y ° ° o a °pp/®l, c• g y $~ y' op Y E u E_ u ~C. rQp ^e a a. O K L~ O i>~ tl~ C C Y y $~ y r O C 00 O Q y •C Y V V C C Y i ~ ~O S O ~~° O~ ° $~° 9'-`av >aa ~ Sao °°•~3 5 $ ; ~ EL o. `-. r mo ~ _ .~~ Y a °a ~~ 4 9 e e Y~ L~ ~ w ~ a > o m~ ~ ~, v n Yi a e ~~ oe Z 8we°`o €m`o So ~'6~~~°~2 ie~Y~~ a°•. r~oe6~$S9 40 V S O C C V Y C u : L 1.' ° Y~ ~ '~ '° ' Y e' y X y C y O C V y~ V ~_ °~ C ~~ $ V ° SyStt S L tl 8 C ~ C a ° 'J ~ .J y 998 ue~'o~~$`o E4v° d'0'v~$~e c:~CauBY uc°~o@ du~Z' uo'v ~v T.$ ~t O V a 0 F O ~8 ~. o` Y WW ~ $g a yz ~gb s 50jt1 c°2 E ~Eg ~ ° ~< EsSS ~' Qo 2 ~ a d V v°, a~E E v a ° = 6 c e -~ Z E $ 'c `°' Y ~ ° iA~ f~ gac'~ ;yr~ CC o 8fd ~3 Y°y~ s` o ~r GiE ¢°t3~3 3' 8. ~ `o Or gggd g° 2,`Q c eS O e gg ~ g C7 E fF EBB `o u~ `o~ c az.Eo iE e a ° c a y 0 0 U •_~ a ~ R c y° a Q E Y ryL m ~ Y a ' ~~ Y G C Y q Nd ~~,E ~~s _ °g Y ~ .. `~ w'v 5 ~ o° E e~m -gtl..,£r~~u $s Ei°L' a 9u°e Y, Q e € L' uC ~ C v tr r ~.~9 ~ r ~ ~ P 6 .°i e ; Ti y 3 °c g ~f 6 ~U,. iai `o ~ti oa~E`°v ~6 Ca OCap6C ~y~y°°~aro ~Ym Y>.gEpE° Y FFY e a FFu °e ~ ~ g ~ i5 E c E ° e o o ~ ~ gag s_ ~ E °Q ~ °y Qp vt~d~~F~~`e ~oee~o~oA~ e~ira.'96h'~'- ~~ G~Ci ~y¢ o ~ Ti 6 G O ~ S.S ° 'E ~ ~i a Y°. ~p, W c yI n ~ a ~ a W _G Y Y Y~ ~ Y ~ 3 < ~ ~ = p ~: G Z O F O ~a pp v 'e' C h'. 8 F. 50;~ `off m m o c ~ ° 0 0 ~~~ E.~ e~ e9 e9 e.'- s 2$ 3€ 3@ ~d ~d C N ~ 6 ~ a L` ~ : i` d E` _ ~,` Y a v ° ~ z E E~ E '~ E `~ E `~ Z a Cg :G. Cg '~ p. v F ~ E' e e ~ ° C 6 C ~ C g Z! ° C m 0 o c E `o ~ E `o ~ E t~~J O °~ u~ C L L E~ E~ L"o u ~'' a u ~'a u Fri ftK UmC UmG UmC P$, 1O r c ° E ~. ~ Yi e Q a S ~ ~ ,'~~ €~ ~ €' o C .'~ y .'~ y u qq q ~, ~O ~~ a ~ C ~ ~ O C Y ~~ ~ 6 O 6 N a 4 a. tZ oo am E a am $ E a o.~ a~ c? e ~ ` ~ ~~ ~ e E e o U N a q ° a e m _i`a ~ u® o f ~~ a`~p ams °~~~ o,ea, .8~a •, Y~ y Y O O O V yC[ _ !! y C 6O Y~ G Y Y C m C C y q V s vdi°G s~o 0:~2 pue_°E ~~' °'~Y ~i:a fit:°3 ~aE'^ 3•r eu°e e o~~;Z(L E =o a E° ~ 6~ .= G~ ~ r r '6 P+' x E~~ E $ m a ~ o 0~ E° h y~ O V ° a a E u r 0 'e w° y° > •u L" E C C7 ~ u L oG EE •~Ti E ° E c s° a y e V m. `o G' L' v ~ oa._c' R{ E Y .re ~ a.~Z ae ~ a°U'S e ~ a$ G C o • ~ y O O ~ •~ w G C C C 777... C G ° ~ .°. Z b a s 'p 3 ° ° ° 8 m .~ SCj ~ u$ 4~p e, a a. o ~ ~'e ~ L R. m~ O VJJ N ~ yp YJ ~ ~ < ~ f Z O O ~ ~ p~+7 a v, Z E E ~C pl O o Cal rr a m ~ ~s ~` d $S g~ Q E 6 E d ~' m ~' mZ EO Ed' gC~ F~ F~ zo6 `03 03 ~ 'uiE EidE `o `o Z h7 ~ C ~ m m ~s ~s 4 ~ ~~ 0€' ~~ r~ f~ oO. so, a E y E a ~ m V) 6 6 ~~ aE aE Y Y ~ O ~ O ' ~ Y ~ C Y C aii C gy C ~y 2 e c e m E a a~ E g 8.` `°= t~~ rE o a u a z _s" _°°~ Y V ~ + V 1'35 _~ O Y qv •0 pep Y CO Y ~ Y 0 Y IO O ~m E~ ~~~r ~geE;, ~ e a~ ~ e o u E c S' E. 9 ~ ~ O ~ el ~ `o `o ~q o 0 mf B L 3 ~~ ,~~ T 0 f Y Z O m h h V W pV C Y 3 ° _ e ~ e Y t C Y E _ e y 6 Y ~0 ~ E E C Y E p E Y E Y E ~ E E L Y ~ ` ~ E 8 ° y y ~ ` m ~ 3 m 3 ~ ` '~ 3 3 m a 3 3 3 0 3 ~ a Y Y ~ ~ ,~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ e - ,~ ~ :. ~ a ~ o a ~ 9 8 ~ r E 9 a. C o E o w ~ a a . ~ a u E a a a Y a p ± E a e ° a Y. °o ~ E E ~ E > Cg E E E > E . 5 ¢ d S E °' E E E S E u E u u Y ~ u F ° ° u F u F u F u F e v u F e u F u F v F F F F ~ ~ ~ ~ yn ' ` ` `o `o E ~ `o ~ ~ `o `o `o u `o ~ ~ `o `o `o C o a _ y ' ~ ' ' F a 'u v G u c u F F CJ ~ u F C7 C) a F u a v u ~ N « ~ ~ O p N p~ pN N m m ~ ^ °' N N ~ ' N ~ M l ~ ~ P ~ Irj m N N ^ ~ N O pL P ^ m N b N ~ • ^ v~ N N O O t'1 p AI N m M N p Y~ m p ~ ~ N ~ ~ Al ~ y~ ^i Al O p p V N 1'1 _ € 2 ° 'a m ~ ° a g f ~ 4 '~ ~ ° a n € `o z 2 y € i ~, y e .@ ` E B H E o ° v ` ~ G o ~ E OO ~ O C ~ `o C ~ e O a 6 = o a ~ O ~ ~ ~ 6 u = P e p 4 a W e 6 < ~ 6 < a ~ Y ti d y C S ~' s a s .. i s .. i s k o. `o i s `o off. ~ z O y ~' s a. 0 L11T lLCil~J10L1V8J[JiV Q ~LDp TRAFFIC IAD'ROVEMENTS ASSIGNED TO PROPOSED PROJECT (to be provided at a later date) O O :~ O;. ~~ O ~~~~~ ~~ SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 1 EIR N0. 348 O Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (714)694-6400 Prepared By: Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc. 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714)644-7977 June, 1994 O I. Introduction aad Purpose A. Background ....................:.....................1 B. Purpose .............................................1 C. Summary Analysis ..................................... 3 II. Project Description A. Objectives ............................................5 B. . "Revised" Project Plan ..............:.................... 5 C. "Original" Project Plan .................................. 9 D. Comparative Analysis .................................. 12 III. Environmental Analysis A. Seismic Safety ....................................... 14 B. Slopes and Erosion .................................... 17 C. Wind Erosion and Blowsand ............................. 19 D. Flooding ............................................ 20 E. Noise .............................................. 22 F. Climate and Air Quality ................................ 24 G. Water Quality ........................................ 26 H. Toxic Substances ..................................... 27 I. J. Agriculture ......................................... Open Space and Conservation ............................ 28 O 29 K. Wildlife/Vegetation .................................... 30 L. Energy Resources ..................................... 32 M. Scenic Highways ...................................... 33 N. Cultural and Scient~c Resources ......................... 34 O. Circulation .......................................... 36 P. Utilities and Services .................................. 42 Q. Light and Glare ...................................... 44 R. Disaster Preparedness .................................. 45 IV. Mandatory CEQA Topics A. Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................. 46 B. Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................. 46 C. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ....................... 46 D. Growth Inducing Impacts, the Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity, and Irreversible/ Irretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented ............... 47 Attachments A - Supplemental Traffic Analysis O B - Correspondence from the Temecula Valley Unified School District O O fi.YSB' ®F ~'I[QaU~~ 1. "R.evised" Project Land Use Plan ................................ 7 2. "Original" Project Land Use Plan .............................. 10 O g,I~T ®P TAIE$F.lES 1. Comparative Analysis of Impacts and ABitigations ................... 3 2. "R.evised" Project Land Use Summary ............................ 6 3. Development Phasing Plan .................................... 9 4. "Original" Project Land Use Summary ........................... 11 5. Land Use Comparative Summary .............................. 13 6. Air Quality Analysis ........................................ 25 7. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan ....... 38 8. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan ....... 39 9. Comparison of Traffic Impacts .....................:.......... 40 10. Utility Agencies ...........................................42 11. Public Services and Utilities Comparison of Impacts ................ 43 O O O 0 ~~E~~ E~ II. II~'JClEB.®IID~J~7TII®RT ~ ]~~.TIE$,]~®~E ~,. Back~rrouad The Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. In February, 1993, an Addendum EIR to the Campos Verdes Specif c Plan was prepared. The purpose of this first Addendum EIR was three-fold: 1) to respond to various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; 2) incorporate subsequently-prepared technical analyses (in the azeas of O traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the concerns raised by the City or as a result of the subsequently-prepared technical studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. B. ose Most recently, revisions were made to the land use plan for the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan which reduce the number of proposed dwelling units and changes the size of other proposed on-site land uses. It is the intent of this Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report to identify and discuss the revisions made to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan (see Section II., Project Description) followed by an analysis of the changes in project impacts and provision of any additional mitigation measures (see Section III., Environmental Analysis). Technical analyses specifically prepazed in response to these project revisions (in the area of traffic) aze referred to within the text of Section III and aze included in their entirely as Attachments to this Addendum to the Draft EIR. The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with clarification regazding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to be an Addendum to the Campos Verdes Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15164 O of the State CEQA Guidelines which states: (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepaze an Addendum to an EIR if: 1 (1) None of the conditions descn'bed in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project revisions, changes in circumstances surrounding the project, or additional project impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming feasible or available); (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the ' Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. (b) An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. (c) The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. This Addendum EIR in combination with the Draft EIR, Response to Comments package, the previously-prepazed Addendum EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments and technical reports constitute the Final EIR for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This Addendum to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepazed for the City of Temecula in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and City Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. More specifically, the City has relied on Section 15084(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepazed by the applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted "screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the previously-prepazed Addendum EIR, and this Addendum to the Draft EIR to reflect their own independent judgement to the extent of their ability. In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines, this Addendum to the Draft EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, to evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any adverse effects. The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects of the project against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for development. O O O 2 O C. Suffinaarv Analysis The following tabular summary lists the environmental issues discussed within both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and this Addendum to the Draft EIR. This summary table indicates which environmental issues experienced a change in project-related impacts and/or the provision of additional mitigation measures beyond those contained in the Draft EIR as a result of the revisions made to the proposed project land use plan, as discussed in Section II of this Addendum. 'I'A~%.E 1 C®1V~A]R.AT%VE A1VA%.Y5%~ ®F ]IlNiPACTS AIVD RgIT%GATIONS Changes in Additional Environmental Issue Proiect Impacts MitisationMeasures A. Seismic Safety* decreased no B. Slopes and Erosion unchanged no C. Wind Erosion and Blowsand unchanged no D. Flooding decreased no E. Noise* decreased no F. Climate and Air Quality* decreased no G. Water Quality decreased no O H. Toxic Substances unchanged no I. Agriculture* unchanged no J. Open Space and Conservation unchanged no K. WildlifeNegetation* decreased no L. Energy Resources decreased no M. Scenic Highways decreased no N. Cultural and Scientific Resources unchanged no O. Circulation* decreased no P. Utilities and Services* decreased no ..Q. Light and Glare decreased no R. Disaster Preparedness decreased no * Significant Impacts Remain; Statement of Overriding Considerations Required As shown above, project related impacts in the areas of Seismic Safety, Flooding, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Water Quality, Energy Resources, Scenic Highways, Circulation, Utilities and Services, Light and Glare and Disaster Preparedness have been reduced as a consequence of revisions. made to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The nature and extent of the changes in project impacts and additional O mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section III, Environmental Analysis of this Addendum to the Draft EIR. None of the net changes in project impacts noted above result in the creation of new mitigation measures or unavoidable adverse environmental impacts beyond those already identified in the Campos Verdes Draft 3 Environmental Impact Report. Significant impacts as a result of development of the O "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan remain in the areas of Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife/Vegetation, Circulation and Utilities and Services (libraries). O O 4 O ~. PR~~T D>E~~RI~®lv A. ®b~e~tive® The basic objective of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan is to provide single family detached residential housing accompanied by on-site commercial, institutional, and recreational uses. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Addendum EIR) has been prepared to facilitate an objective assessment of the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with approval and implementation of the revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The project involves the following proposed discretionary actions by the City of Temecula: 1) Approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; 2) Certification of the Campos Verdes Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 89020139); 3) Approval of a change of zoning to Spec Plan (SP); and 4) Approval of the Campos Verdes Mitigation Monitoring Program. It is the intent of this Section II to provide a detailed discussion of the recently- revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan (to be referred to as the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan or the "Revised" project plan). This discussion contains the same O level of detail as found in the Project Description within the Draft EIR. As indicated in Section I., Introduction and Purpose, these revisions to the proposed project occurred subsequent to the circulation of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft EIR. This Section next provides a summary of the Original Specific Plan discussed and analyzed in the Draft EIR (to be referred to as the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan or the "Original" project plan). In order to maintain the adequacy of the Draft EIR and to facilitate the evaluation of the impacts of these revisions, a compazative analysis of the "Revised" and "Original" project plans is also provided in this Section. B. "Revised" Proiect Plan The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is illustrated in Figure 1, "Revised" Project Land Use Plan and delineated in Table 2, "Revised" Project Land Use Summary. The "Revised" project plan involves a maximum total of 308 dwelling units on 72.7 acres (a net density of 4.2 dwelling units per acre) with 19.8 acres of commerciaUofl'ice/church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre pazk, a 10.7 acre Elementary School and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways. O 5 TABLE 2 "REFIISEID" PROJECT LAND USE SLT)id1~AR.I' Land Use Designation Residentis~l Low (.5 to 2 DU/AC) Low Medium (3 to 6 DU/AC) Subtotal 1Von- Residential Commercial Commercial/ Office/Church and Detention Basin' Elementary School Pazk 2 Roads Subtotal PROJECT TOTAL Notes Planning Area Density Dwelling Acres (DU/AC) Units s 1.1 is ls.o 3 6.3 76 12.0 5 5.2 86 16.5 6 5.9 72 ]2.3 8 3.5 56 15.9 4.2 306 72.7 4 - - 12.0 2 - - 13.7 7 - - 10.7 1 - - 10.8 - - - 13.0 60.2 2.3 308 132.8 ' Approximately 7.8 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/office uses adjacent to North General Keazny Road. The remaining 5.9 acres shall include a landscaped detention basin., No park credits will be given for the detention basin by the City. O O z The developer shall receive full park credits from the City for 7.5 acres of pazkland within Planning Area 1. The remaining 3.3 acres in Planning Area 1 shall be used for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any O pazk credits for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses. 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ V < Zt ~ O ~ Cy ^ G> G y~r C { 2 I zIyYY.I[ ~ ~ ~~ ,; .~~ .~~ O ~- ' ~ ~t: . , ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ _ ~~. / %! ;i' t ~, ~ \~ ~ ~~ ~, ,\ ~ e~~ ~ _ e ~I.: \ ~. ~ ` ~\ .~ ., i~\ ` a' ~~ ~ ~~ \`/ ~~. ~~ ~ V 1 ~ /, ~ i /'~~~~~1~~~ ~ d ,' / •, / s~ j ~ ~ V The proposed land uses within the Specific Plan include: O Low Density Residential: Appro~mately 18 dwelling units will be developed on 16 acres at a density of 1.1 dwelling units per acre. Those single family detached homes will be located in Planning Area 9 adjacent to the off-site residential uses. _Low Medium Density Residential: The remaining residential development within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be developed within a density range of 3.5 to 6.3 dwelling units per acre. Planning Areas 3, 5, 6 and 8 contain a total of 290 residential dwelling units on a total of 56.7 acres. CommerciaUOffice and Detention Basin: Planning Area 4 will be developed with 12.0 acaes of commercial property along Margarita and Winchester Roads. Planning Area 2 (13.7 acres total) will be developed with a detention basin on 5.9 acres; commercial/office uses will be constructed on 7.8 acres of the parcel, adjacent to North General Keazny Road. The developer shall not receive any pazk credit for the detention basin facility in Planning Area 2. Park: A 10.8 acre park is planned along North General Kearny Road in Planning Area 1. It is anticipated that this park will contain softball/soccer fields, on-site pazking, tot lots, picnic area, etc. A total of 7.5 acres will count fully toward City park requirements. A portion of the park (3.3 acres) will be used for drainage/detention purposes to help protect adjacent land uses from flooding during a 100-yeaz storm. O The 3.3 acres of drainage- and detention-related uses will not count toward City requirements for pazk credits. Elementarv School: A 10.7 acre elementary school site shall be provided in Planning Area 7. This elementary school will be utilized by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. This site may be used as credit against School Mitigation Fees which may otherwise be required. If a school is not constructed on this site, then a maximum of 64 single family dwellings may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots. Roads: Roadways totalling 13.0 acres will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project. Project-wide development standards have been prepazed to manage implementation of general or unique conditions in each Planning Area. These general standards aze listed in Section III.A.1., Specific Land Use Plan of the Campos Verdes Spec Plan. Speck information regazding the Planning Areas can be found in Section III.D., Planning Area Development Standards and Section III.C., Zoning Ordinance within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be developed over a five year period in accordance with the Development Phasing Plan delineated in Table 3 below. O 8 O T'Al3%.E 3 DEL®P~~PI»~P~ Phase Use Planning Acres Units Area • Phase II Years 1 and 2 -Park 1 10.8 0 - Elementary School ' 7 10.7 0 - Low Medium Residential 3 12.0 76 -Low Medium Residential 5 16.5 86 -Low Medium Residential 6 12.3 72 subtotal ~ 62.3 234 Phase II Yeazs 3 to 5 -Low Residential 9 16.0 18 -Low Medium Residential 8 15.9 56 - CommerciaUOflice/ Church and Drainages 2 13.7 0 - Commercial 4 12.0 0 Subtotal b7.6 74 O Project 13.0 Roadways PROJECT 132.8 308 TOTAL Notes ' Phasing of the elementary school will ultimately be determined by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The District may elect to build the school in Phase II, "if ever. If a school is not constructed on this site, then a maximum of 64 single family dwelling may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots. s The detention basin in Planning Area 2 may be developed eazlier depending upon the phasing of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. C. "Ori¢inal" Proieet Plan The "Original" Compos Verdes Specific Plan involved a maximum total of 850 dwelling units on 86.0 acres (a net density of 9.9 dwelling units per acre) as illustrated in Figure 2. As noted in Table 4, "Original" Project Land Use Summary, residential O densities range from Medium Low Density (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre on 21.0 acres); Medium Density (5 to 8 dwelling units per acre on 27.1 acres); and Very High Density (8 to 17 dwelling units per acne on 37.9 acres). In addition, a total of 18.1 acres of commerciaUoffice/church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 13.5 acre park and 9.5 acres of on-site roadways were also proposed. 9 ~i ~c° ~~ - ~ q ~ ^ ~ F .. ~ ~~~~ ~l a ,, ill `l yr ~ C S ~~ ,; ,~Y - ~ (i~(~ - ..~y~.~ 1\. z ~;` ~ _ ~ _ ~..- - ~ I ?y" ~J' ~ I l i .. _ i,~ ~ ,' I ~ ,. ~ ~~ `~: _ ;,i,<)' ~~ ~.~ ~~. e ~;~: ~ ~~ ;~~4, h ~ c, u h~Yy a$-? b w ~~ .~ ~ ', ~~ OO J4 I~ 10 TA~Ll;4 o ®R~G~AL~ PROJECT L~ ~~1/ ~Ula~agAR~ Land Use Planning Area Density • Dwelling Acres Designation (DU/AC) Units Residential Medium Low 7 3.0 65 21.0 (2 to 5 DU/AC) Medium (5 to 6 5.2 141 27.1 8 DU/AC) Very High (8 5 17.0 267 15.7 to 17 DU/AC) 3 17.0 377 22.2 Subtotal 9.9 Ob0 06.0 1Von- Residential Commercial 4 - - 13.5 Commercial/ Office/Church 2 - - 10.4 and Detention Basin' Pazkz 1 - - 13.5 Roads - - - 9.5 Subtotal 46.9 PROJECT 6.4 O60 132.9 TOTAL Notes ' Approximately 4.6 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/off~ce uses adjacent to North General Keazny Road. The remaining 5.8 acres shall include a landscaped detention basin. No pazk credits will be given for the detention basin by the City. z The developer shall receive full park credits from the City for 10.7 acres of parkland within Planning Area 1. The remaining 2.8 acres in Planning Area 1 shall be used for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any pazk credits O for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses. 11 IID. Uoffivarative Analvsi® O Provided below is both a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the "Revised" and "Original" project plans (each of which is individually discussed in Sections II.B. and II.C., respectively of this Addendum to the Draft EIR) and summarized in Table 5, Land Use Comparative Summary. As previously noted, revisions to the project land use plan occurred subsequent to the public circulation of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft EIR. The following list represents the primary elements of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan which have changed since circulation of the Drag EIR. These revisions are currently reflected within the "Revised" Project Plan. 1. The proposed maximum dwelling unit total for the Campos Verdes Spec Plan has been reduced from 850 to 308, a reduction of 63.7%. The gross project density has been reduced to 2.3 dwelling units per gross acre from 6.4 dwelling units per gross acre. The net density of the project has also been reduced from 9.9 to 4.2 dwelling units per net acre. Net density relates to the number of proposed dwelling units within actual developed acreage. A reduced total of 72.7. acres is devoted to residential land uses in the "Revised" project land use plan as compared to 86.0 acres of residential uses in the "Original" project land use plan. 2. Within the overall dwelling unit total, the densities of proposed residential uses have been reduced. The "Revised" Campos Verdes Spec Plan contains housing O within the Low Density (0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre) and Low Medium Density Residential (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) categories. The "Original" project plan provided housing within the Low Medium Density (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) and Very High Density (8 to 17 dwelling units per acre) residential density categories. The "Revised" project plan eliminates all housing within these two higher residential density categories. In so doing, all attached housing has been eliminated from the project proposal. 3. The amount of commercial/offlce/church land use has been expanded to a total of 19.8 acres from 18.1 acres in the "Original" project plan. An additional 3.2 acres of commercial/office/church use was added to Planning Area 2 while 1.5 acres of commercial use was taken from Planning Area 4, a net increase of 1.7 acres. 4. The pazk proposed in Planning Area 1 has been reduced to 10.8 acres in the "Revised" project plan from 13.5 acres in the "Original" project plan. A total of 7.5 acres (rather than the original proposal of 10.7 acres) will be applied towazd City pazk requirements. The portions of Planning Areas 2 and 4 contain areas which will serve as a retention basin or will provide drainage/detention functions. These drainage and detention-related uses apply to azeas for-which no pazk credit is being requested. 5. A 10.7 acre Elementary School site has been added to the "Revised" project land use plan within Planning Area 7 (see FSgure 1 "Revised" Project Land Use Plan). O . Within the "Original" project land use plan, ten acres was identified within Land Use Development Standazd 18 on page III-8 of the Campos Verdes Spec Plan (January, 1993) as a "potential elementary school site". At that time, it was stipulated that if 12 O the option of constructing a school was not pursued by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, a mazamum of 64 dwelling units would be constructed at this location. Thia stipulation of conversion to residential use of this area remains within the "Revised" Specific Plan. O O The additional environmental impacts associated with these project revisions are _: discussed in detail in the following Section III., Environmental Analysis. Land Use Designation Residential Low Density (0.2 DU/AC) Low Medium Density (2 to 5 DU/AC) Medium Density (5 to 8 DU/AC) Very High Density (8 to 17 DU/AC) Subtotal Commercial CommerciaU OfTice/Church and Detention Basin Pazk Elementazy School Roads PROJECT TOTAL TABLE 6 L~eAlSD U5E COI~ARAT%VE ~AR.Y "Revised" Land Use Plan Acres Dwelling Units "Original" LandUse Plan Acres Dwelling Units 16.0 18 - - 56.7 290 21.0 65 - - 27.1 141 - - 37.9 644 72.7 308 86.0 8b0 12.0 13.5 13.7 10.4 10.8 13.5 10.7 - 13.0 9.5 132.9 308 132.9 860 13 ffi. Ele1VIIR®1~1FdENTAI. ANALYSIS O -he following environmental analysis is intended to identify and discuss the changes :n project impacts and propose any additions and/or revisions to recommended mitigation measures resulting from the revisions made to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan (as discussed in Section II, Project Description of this Addendum to the Draft EIR). This analysis will identify the net changes from those impact assessments and mitigation measures contained in the previously-circulated Campos Verdes Draft Environmental Impact Report. This section analyzes these project revisions in terms of the same environmental topics discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Each analysis begins with a summary of "Existing Conditions" and the "Previously-Identified Project Impacts" as discussed in the Draft EIR. Following these summaries is an "Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts" resulting from the revisions to the project land use plan. Each analysis concludes with a listing of any "Revised Mitigation Measures". Any "revised" mitigation measures have been included in the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Both the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program will be the subject of consideration and certification by the City of Temecula concurrent with final action on the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. A. SEISRh[IC SAFETY O 1. E~sting Conditions The site lies within a region of generally high seismicity as does all of Southern California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience ground motion from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The dominant structural feature in the area is the northwest-striking Elsinore Fault Zone. This fault zone coincides with the dominant northwest-southwest structural and regional tectonic patterns displayed by other fault systems including the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault Zone. A magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring on the Elsinore Fault (Wildomaz Branch) neaz the site could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.708 at the site. The duration of strong motion is expected to exceed 30 seconds. No known active faults project towazd or extend through the site. The site is not located within a designated State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Groundwater was encountered on the south-central and southeast section of the project at a depth as shallow as 23 feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater does not extend into the relatively shallow alluvium, but is limited to within the late O Pleistocene Age sedimentary bedrock. Based on the type of soils and depth to groundwater, any liquefaction that might occur on-site is likely to be confined to the relatively thin zones of deep saturated soils. Therefore, any minor liquefaction 14 O occurring on-site is not considered significant. The proposed project lies within a dam inundation area and may be subject to seismically induced flooding from a dam failure at Skinner Reservoir. The project site is located approximately six miles downstream of Skinner Reservoir within close proximity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Skinner Reservoir is utilized for domestic water ,storage, not for flood control purposes. According to the Dam Break and Floodway Inundation Study for Domenigoni Valley Reservoir West Dam and Skinner Reservoir Dam, Riverside County (prepared by the Office of Hydrological Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, Cal State University, Sacramento; dated September 15, 1993), the project site will not be inundated due to a breach of the Domenigoni Valley Reservoir West Dam. 2. Previously-IIdentified Project Impacts The Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomaz Fault alignment which is located appro~mately 1 mile southwest of the project. As previously mentioned, this fault zone is presently included within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The project design has reflected State and local regulations with respect to the Wildomaz Fault. It is possible that during a Richter magnitude 7.5 earthquake along the Elsinore Fault O Zone (Wildomaz Branch) the site will experience a maximum peak ground acceleration in bedrock of 0.70g. Due to the content of on-site soils and the depth of groundwater, secondary seismic hazazds such as liquefaction, if any, that may occur will be confined to the relatively thin zones of deep saturated soils. Any minor liquefaction occurring on-site is considered insignificant and is not anticipated to cause damage or collapse of on-site structures. A portion of the Campos Verdes site lies within a dam inundation area and may be =,subject to seismically induced flooding from a failure of Skinner Dam. This is an unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepazed. 3. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (798 persons based upon a factor of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit) as compared to the "Original" Spec Plan (2,201 new residents). This decrease of 1,403 project residents (63.7% of the previous total) results in fewer persons being exposed to potential seismic safety hazards as a result of ground shaking expected to occur on the project site as well as seismically-induced flooding due to failure of Skinner Dam. The extent O of impacts of the project upon existing seismic conditions will remain unchanged from those associated with the "Original" project plan. 15 ~. lEBava~tl R/~itigation 1~1Leasureg O No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O O 16 O g$. BI.2DP)F5 A~ 1:'II8®~II®Rl 1. ]Effistigsg Gonditio~ Topography acaoss the site consists of low rolling hills and associated southwest- trending drainages with a ma~mum relief of about 100 feet. The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province east of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Peninsular Ranges extend southward from the Los Angeles Basin through Baja California, and are characterized by large Mesozoic Age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic metasedimentary and sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges have a general northwest-trending structural gain that includes such geologic features as faults, bedding and foliation trends, and geologic contacts. Site elevations range from between approximately 1,166 feet and 1,069 feet. The site is underlain by bedrock materials of the Pauba Formation and alluvium which are locally mantled by topsoil. Artificial fill exists in the perimeter of the northwest portion of the site. 2. Previously-Identified Project Iffipacts The Campos Verdes Specific Plan is considered feasible for the proposed residential and commercial development, provided that the generalized recommendations found in the "Geotechnical Investigation," included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR, and future geotechnical investigations are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed project. Development of the Campos Verdes project will require alteration of the existing natural landform. Complete removal of all alluvial, topsoil, and loose compressible low strength older alluvium and/or disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement of structural fills. Soils removed during the excavation procedures may be utilized as compacted fill, provided they have been stripped of organics and other deleterious materials. Cut and fill slopes will be designed and are anticipated to be stable at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope. Slopes of greater height as well as the final design of all cut and fill slopes will require approval during grading plan review. The geotechnical reports indicates that 35 feet of fill slopes and 38 feet of cut slopes are proposed. According to the Project Engineer, the proposed grading plan results in 2,616,743 cubic yards of cut and 376,123 cubic yards of fill. With appropriate permits, the balance of earthwork will be relocated to the Temecula Regional Center proposed to the west of Campos Verdes. Due to the content of on-site soils, slope erosion is a significant concern with regard to surficial stability. To alleviate this impact, it is recommended that slopes be properly compacted and all cut and fill slopes be planted with erosion resistant vegetation or other protective devices immediately after grading. O 17 s. .~nalyaia of Changes in g'roject ][nupmcts O The geotechnical feasibility of development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan, given adherence to current and future geotechnical recommendations, remains unchanged. The "Revised" project plan maintains the same amount of area (132.9 acres) being disrupted by grading as the "Original" project plan. Development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in a similar total of approximately 2.6 million cubic yards of material being moved as that associated with the "Original" project plan with the balance of earthwork, being relocated, if necessary, to the Temecula Regional Center site to the west. The potential for erosion-related impacts remain unchanged within the "Revised" project plan given adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR. 4. Revised R~itigation R/Ieasures No additional and(or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O O 18 O ~. lJR®~~®~ A~ B~®w~A~ 1. Effistiag Conditions The project is not located within the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Area designated within the Riverside .County Comprehensive General Plan. 2. Previously-identified Project ]Inspects Although the project site lies outside the Wiad/Erosion or Blowsand Areas designated by the County of Riverside, construction activities (primarily site preparation and grading) will generate fugitive dust. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. •- Applying the above factors to the approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month grading cycle completing 25% of the grading, and a 5 year grading duration, an average of .05 tons (109 pounds) per day of particulate emissions will be released during grading of the project site. Dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. O 3. Analysis of Changes is Project Empacts The Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to involve a similaz amount of landform alteration as the "Original" Specific Plan. A similar amount of area (132.9 acres) and earth being moved (2.6 million cubic yards) is associated with the "Revised" project plan as was expected with the "Original" Spec Plan. Little change in Wind and Blowsand impacts is therefore anticipated. 4. Revised R3itigation 1Vdeasures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 19 1. ]EExzsting Conditions The majority of the project area is located within the Santa Gertrudis Valley, to the north of the confluence of the Santa Gertrudis and Murtieta Creeks. An existing 100- year floodplain occupies the southern portion of the project site in the vicinity of an "un-named dry wash" which traverses the site. This wash discharges through an existing 10 foot x 5 foot RCB under Margarita Road. The total area tributary to the basin outlet at Margarita Road is approffimately 1,650 scree. Off-site to the southwest, the site discharges under Ynez Road through an existing double 10 foot X 5 foot Reinforced Concrete Boa (RCB) under Ynez Road, located approffimately 1,200 feet north of Solana Way. This RCB is presently able to convey the estimated existing 1,250 cubic feet per second of storm water but any additional development upstream even without the Campos Verdes project will exceed the RCB capacity. Portions of the Campos Verdes site drains toward the empty lot of the proposed Temecula Regional Center, Spec Plan No. 263. The runoff travels via overland flow to the existing double 7 foot X 5 foot RCB at Palm Plaza. O A small portion of runoff generated on the west slope of the ridge adjacent to O Winchester Road currently drains to an existing 24 inch CMP culvert under Winchester Road. It is then conveyed through a cut channel to Santa Gertrudis Creek. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District. The project site is also located within the Temecula Valley Area of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, and there are drainage fees of $1,970 per acre associated with developments within the site. 2. Previously %dentified Project Impacts Approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan would result in short-term and long- term hydrologic impacts. The development and construction phase of the proposed project would potentially create short-term downstream impacts related to erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils during project grading. The development phase of the project will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces on-site that will increase the existing 100 yeaz storm runoff' from 1,055 cubic feet per second to approximately 1,567 cubic feet per second at Mazgarita Road. The developed on-site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be adequately conveyed by the proposed drainage system. The proposed drainage system incorporates spark/detention basin along the southern project boundary (Planning Area 1) in order to reduce the flow rate experienced by the Ynez Road double box drainage facility to 1,250 cubic feet per second. O 20 O According to the project engineer, the proposed detention basin will be designed to convey the 5 year storm runoff directly through the proposed pazk/retention basin site allowing full use of the remaining park areas. During storms greater than the 5 year event, stormwater retention will impact the proposed on-site recreational pazk area. Drainage facilities from the project site ultimately discharge downstream into the .Murrieta Creek and without the proposed Campos Verdes retention basin would increase the existing 100 year storm of 1,250 cubic feet per second to approximately 1,890 cubic feet per second. This increased .flow rate would contribute to cumulative .increased flow rates downstream and the potential for flooding in areas with undersized facilities. The cumulative drainage impacts in the Rancho California area are currently being addressed by RCFC & WCD's design studies for improvement of the Murrieta Creek Channel. 3. Analysis of Changes in Project )(mpacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves a similar amount of azea being disrupted during project construction as compared to the "Original" project plan. As such, simiIaz, short-term potential downstream impacts related to erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils during project grading is expected to occur. O The amount of impervious surfaces created by development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to be reduced as compared to the "Original" project plan as a consequence of the significant (63.7%) reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units. Although an additional 3.5 acres of on-site roadways are proposed as part of the ".Revised" Spec Plan, as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan, this increase in the amount of impervious roadway surface will be negated by the decrease in the total number of dwelling units (and associated impervious surfaces, i.e. roofs, driveways, etc.) proposed. This reduction of 541 dwelling units results in the reduction of approximately 1,084,000 squaze feet of impervious surfaces (assuming 2,000 square feet of roofs, driveways, patios, etc. per dwelling unit). The increase of 3.5 acres of on-site roads creates 152,460 square feet of additional impervious surface. Therefore, the "Revised" Spec Plan results in a net decrease of 931,540 squaze feet of impervious surfaces as compared the the "Original" Project plan. Levels of storm runoff from the "Revised" Specific Plan is therefore expected to be reduced as compazed to the "Original" Specific Plan. In either case, the proposed drainage system is expected to be capable of handling any increases in storm flows from the developed Campos Verdes site. Since the "Revised" Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (a decrease of 1,403 residents) fewer persons will be exposed to potential flooding hazards. 4, Revised l~i[itigation R9[easures O No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 21 lE. 1~I®1B1E O 1. lE.xisting Conditions Data provided in the Draft EIR indicates that a major noise corridor exists along Interstate 15. Noise levels directly adjacent to Interstate 15 exceed 70 CNEL. Other roadways in the vicinity have low levels of traffic and corresponding low levels of noise. In the vicinity of the project site, the 65 CNEL contour extends approximately 73 feet beyond the centerline of Winchester Road and remains within the right-of--way of Margarita Road. 2. Previously-IIdentifi®d Proj®ct 1[ffipmcts Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Noise levels for equipment which might be used for the excavation and construction of the proposed project range from approximately 65 to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The noise levels decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance. The proposed development of Campos Verdes will generate traffic, and as a result will alter projected noise levels in the surrounding areas. Due to future development which has already been approved there will be an increase in traffic in surrounding O azeas with or without the proposed project. The noise levels will increase substantially over existing noise levels for sensitive land uses along some of the streets in the vicinity of the project. These increases are primarily due to other projects planned in the area. The substantial increases are generally due to the relatively low amount of traffic currently in the area. A maximum change of 12.8 dB exists along Mazgazita Road (between B Street and Winchester Road) which will have a noise exposure just less than 70 CNEL at the edge of the roadway right-of--way off-site. Areas along I-15, Diaz Road, Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, Margarita Road, Nicolas Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road and Solana Way will also experience noise increases greater than 3 dB. Those roadways that have noise increases greater than 3 dB and future noise levels greater than 65 CNEL are considered significant impacts if existing residential developments are adjacent to the roadways. Such roadways include Mazgarita Road, Winchester Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicholas Road. For planned residential areas that are not yet developed, roadway noise can be mitigated by the developer at the time of construction. The future noise increase levels due solely to the project are all less than 3 dB except for along Margarita Road between B Street and Winchester Road. However, this segment of Margarita Road is currently undeveloped, and therefore will not experience significant noise impacts due to the project. Therefore, the project will contribute only slightly to noise increases in the area. However, the impact of cumulative O development upon this roadway segment results in an increase of 12.8 dB over the existing noise levels. This increase is considered a significant off-site noise impact. 22 O Limited portions of the project site proposed for residential use may experience traffic noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Specifically, residential lots along General Kearny and Margarita Road may experience noise levels over 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Residential areas along Winchester Road and proposed commercial/office uses adjacent to Margarita Road will experience noise within acceptable levels. While the proposed project represents an incremental contribution to this ultimate noise impact condition, cumulative noise increases are largely a result of increased traffic originating outside the project boundaries. These regional (or cumulative) noise impacts are considered a significant impact to ofl~site areas surrounding these roadways for which a Statement of Overriding Conditions has been prepared 3. Analysis of Changes in Project impacts Since the "Proposed" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves the same amount of azea being subjected to landform alteration (132.9 acres), short-term noise impacts related to project grading is expected to remain unchanged from levels associated with the "Original" project plan. The significant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units will result in a similar decrease in short-term noise impacts associated with construction of structures on the project site. O As noted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis included as Attachment A to this Addendum to the Draft EIR, a total of 12,268 motor vehicle trips aze associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This represents a 24.2% reduction from the total number of vehicle trips (16,184 trips) associated with the "Original" Campos Verdes Spec Plan. This reduction will result in reduced on- and off-site noise impacts. As such, mitigation measures (barriers, setbacks, etc.) to be provided in response to these impacts may also be reduced. The extent of these measures will be determined through acoustical studies prepared prior to grading permit or tract map approval. However, as previously noted, significant future noise impacts aze the result of increased traffic originating outside the project boundaries. These regional _ (or cumulative) noise impacts associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Spec -Plan remain as a significant impact to off-site azeas and will still require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. gtevised Mitigation flLeasures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures aze proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 23 ~. ~T>E~~~>U o 1. E~tia~ Conditions The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The climate of the basin is classified as Mediterranean, characterized by a pattern of cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. State standards for offidants and particulates are exceeded at the Perris Ambient Air Monitoring Station, while State and Federal Standazds of lead and sulfur oxides were sot exceeded at this station. 2. IPreviougly-ddentified )Project %mpmcts Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers aze used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month grading cycle completing 25% of the grading, and a 5 year grading duration, an average of .05 tons per day of O particulate emissions will be released during grading of the project site in one grading phase. Another short term impact will be from the exporting of dirt from Campos Verdes project site to Temecula Regional Center project site during grading. A total of 2.3 million cubic yazds of dirt will be exported during a 6 month grading cycle (26 weeks assuming a 5 day work week). It should be noted that this estimate of amount of fill exported may vary significantly as final grading plans are developed. These emissions aze not considered significant due to the fact that they do not reach significant impact thresholds established by SCAQMD. The main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the residential combustion of natural gas for space heating and the use of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the commercial use of natural gas and electricity. Total long-term pollutant generation (due to motor vehicles, power plant emissions and natural gas emissions) is considered "significant" by the "Air Quality Handbook". O 24 O 3. Analysis of Changes in project Iffipacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to involve a similar amount of landform alteration as the "Original" Specific Plan. A similar amount of area (132.9 acres) and earth being moved (2.6 million cubic yards) is associated with the "Revised" project plan as was expected with the "Original" Specific Plan. Little in the way of ..changes to these short-term air quality impacts is therefore anticipated. As noted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis included as Attachment A to this Addendum to the Draft EIR, a total of 12,268 motor vehicle trips is associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This represents a 24.2% reduction from the total number of vehicle trips (16,184 trips) associated with the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This results in a reduced amount of pollutants generated by motor vehicle emissions from the proposed project. The reduction of 542 dwelling units from the "Original" to the "Revised" Specific Plans also results in a 63.7% decrease in stationary source emissions resulting from electricity and natural gas use. :Provided below is the result of an analysis of the total air pollutant emissions associated with the "Revised" project plan. These calculations utilize the same pollutant generation factors as used in the air quality analyses of the "Original" project plan within the Draft EIR. '%'ARLE 6 O A][l3 QUALYTY AIVALYS%5 (lbs/day) Pollutant Motor Electrical Natural Total SCAQMD Vehicle Emissions Gas Threshold of Emissions Emissions Significance CO 1,167.0 2.8 1.8 1,171.6 550 NOx 226.9 16.0 0.1 243.0 100 SOx 45.4 1.7 - 47.1 150 Particulates 54.2 0.5 0.1 54.8 150 • ROG 92.7 0.1 0.5 93.3 75 Pollutant generation associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance in the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases. In spite of these reductions, air quality impacts associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan remains as a significant impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. O 4. Revised Rh[itigatioa 1Vleasures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 25 ~. wA~R QYJAI.IIT~' O 1. lE~sting Conditions The project lies entirely within the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater area. This groundwater area, the largest in the entire San Diego Region, covers a surface area of about 60,000 acres. The groundwater aquifers are recharged by underflow from the Lancaster Basin to the east and by surface flows from Warm Springs, Murrieta, Santa Gertrudis and Temecula Creeks and by direct precipitation within the valley area. The Murrieta-Temecula Basin is considered to be in an overdraft condition as evidenced by a long-term decline in water levels. Much of the basin is overlain by a relatively impervious layer which restricts recharge of the underlying sediments. According to the "Geotechnical Investigation", on-site groundwater was encountered at depths of about 23 feet and 27 feet. 2. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Construction of the Campos Verdes project will alter the composition of surface runoff by grading the site surfaces, by construction of impervious streets, roofs and pazking facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. As discussed in detail within Section III.D., Flooding, the "Revised" Specific Plan results in a net reduction of approximately O 931,540 squaze feet of impervious surface as compazed to the "Original" Specific Plan. Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream in Murrieta Creek. 3. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The amount of impervious surfaces created by development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specif c Plan is expected to be reduced as compazed to the "Original" project plan as a consequence of the significant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units. The amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system and potentially into groundwater supplies will be similazly reduced due to this reduction in dwelling units and the generation of fewer project residents. 4. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures aze proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 26 o I$. T~~~ ~~~T~~I.;~ 1. Effisting Conditions The subject property has been a site of prior agricultural activities, however, no hazardous waste materials were noted on-site. There are about 1,200 facilities that generate hazardous waste within the jurisdictional review of the County of Riverside Health Department. Approximately 25,000 tons of hazardous waste are being generated in Riverside County each yeaz. Most hazazdous waste generated in the County is either shipped to off-site locations with a significant and growing portion disposed of out of state or managed on-site by the generator. 2. Previously-Identified Project IImpacts The Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation indicates that the presence of hazazdous material within a majority of the subject property is unlikely. However, due to the past agricultural use of the site, there remains the potential for neaz surface .soil contamination due to residues from prior pesticide use. Additionally, located in the northwest azea of the site is a fill azea. While no hazazdous materials were observed within the fill area, there remains an inherent uncertainty as to the O subsurface fill contents. Development of the site may include small quantity generators. Small quantity generators are businesses that produce less than 1,000 kilograms of hazazdous waste per month (13.2 tons per yeaz). A lazge majority of the 1,200 hazardous waste generators under the County's jurisdiction aze small quantity generators. 3. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The potential for near surface soil contamination due to residues from pesticide use associated with prior agricultural activities on-site will remain unchanged from the "Original" to the "Revised" project plans. The increase in the amount of on-site commercial uses from 18.1 to 19.8 acres may result in an increased potential for the establishment of small quantity toxic substance generators. However, given adherence to the mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR, the levels of impacts related to toxic substances are anticipated to remain unchanged. 4. Revised ldditigation l~i[easures . No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 27 %. AQRRIICdJLT1.TRI+; 1. )E»Stitag Conditions The primary crops grown on the Campos Verdes site are pasture crops including bazley and oats. The project site contains Class I and Class II soils which are considered "Prime". The site is designated as "Local Important Farmland" on the Riverside County Agricultural Resources Map. 2. Pr+aviously-IIdentified Project Impacts Implementation of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will remove an estimated 132.9 acres of pasture crops, contributing to the decline of such uses in Riverside County. Project implementation will result in urban development on "Local Important Farmland" per the County Agricultural Resources Map. In addition, development will occur on soils that are classified as "Prime" (soil capability Classes I and II) per the Soil Survev. Western Riverside Area. According to the California Department of Conservation, the loss of any prime agricultural land is considered a significant environmental impact. O Due to the relatively small acreage of agricultural use which will be impacted, the commitment of the project site to non-agricultural uses will not adversely affect the O agricultural productivity of the area. However, construction of various projects in the area will continue and possibly accelerate the trend towazd development of agricultural lands in Riverside County. 3. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts Development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in the removal of 132.9 acres of land which contain soils classified as "Prime" per the Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area. This impact is identical to Agriculture-related impacts associated with the "Original" Specific Plan. This loss of prime agricultural land remains as a significant impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. Negligible impacts off-site agricultural land uses due to project development aze still anticipated to result. 4. Revised 1Viitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures aze proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 28 o ~. ®~1;~~~A~1JA~~®~~~.~A~®~ 1. ]EEzasting Conditions The project site is currently used for dryland farming, primarily for barley. The northern portion of the site is zoned R-R (Rural Residential) while the southern . portion is zoned A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture). The Campos Verdes project site is located in an area which supports many approved and proposed Specific Plans. 2. ~x~eviously-ident~ed project impacts Project approval will ultimately result in the development of the Iand uses proposed by the Campos Verdes project. . Development of the site with the uses proposed will preclude future use of the site for dryland agriculture and will eliminate the open space and rural atmosphere currently present on-site. Project approval would also result in the placement of on-site zoning and General Plan designations of "Specific Plan". Little in the way of land use conflicts with O adjacent land uses are anticipated to result as a consequence of development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. S. Analysis of Changes is Project impacts No changes in Open Space and Conservation (land use) impacts related to development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan as compazed to the "Original" Specific Plan are anticipated. 4. Revised Mitigation R'ieasures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures aze proposed beyond those wntained in the Draft EIR. O 29 ~. ~.D>L>~,~~~TA~®~ o 1. lExistin~ Conditions One naturalized biotic community, introduced grassland, is represented on-site. This community derives its name from the predominance of introduced grass and herb species which have replaced native vegetation as the result of grazing and other past disturbances. It is a community which is widespread in Southern California today, particularly in the Western Riverside County azea. Due to their altered conditions, large, open expanses of introduced grassland pasture and dryland farmed areas generally support a limited abundance and diversity of wildlife and dryland farmed area. Several ground-nesting birds and burrowing mammals were observed on-site. Other species typical of grassland foraging habitat were observed on-site as well. The site is located within the geographical range of one species designated as "Endangered" by the U.S. FYsh and Wildlife Service, the Stephen's kangazoo rat. Based on field observations, the site is not believed to contain any habitat azeas suitable for the Stephen's kangazoo rat. The site provides habitat for a number of wildlife species, however, none of these species are raze or endangered. The azea is considered to be a fairly important raptor wintering area. This determination was O made as a result of the area being a location where raptorial birds (hawks, vultures, eagles, owls and falcons) concentrate due to a high abundance of roosting sites, a good supply of prey species (small mammals and birds) and suitable hunting habitat (generally open brushland and grassland). 2. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Construction activities will result in the removal of physical habitats through cut, fill and other grading activities necessary for roads, building pads, utilities, fuel modification and flood control. The first order impacts of habitat loss will be the direct loss of vegetation and the destruction of less mobile wildlife forms. The impacts of vegetation loss through direct removal will, in turn, have potential effects on wildlife. Aa vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will either be destroyed or displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they will crowd and disrupt local populations. Although increased competition and predation will act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels, either displaced or local wildlife will be lost. Causal factors generated during human activities resulting from the construction and inhabitation of urban land uses maybe collectively termed "hazassment". Harassment is defined as those activities of man and his domestic animals which increase the O physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction in wildlife populations. The most common form of harassment expected to accompany development of the site include excessive construction-related noise, background noise, 30 O light and glare and the introduction of feral cats, dogs and children which are unnatural predators and competitors for wildlife. Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic community to urban development is not considered to be an impact of high significance, nor does it contain the habitat for rare and endangered species and the loss of habitat will not be significantly adverse. Impacts to streambeds (or 'blue-line streams") on-site, regardless of whether they contain riparian vegetation or sensitive faunal species, will be governed by the California Department of FSsh and Game (1601-1603 permit) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permit) and their respective streambed alteration permit processes. As a result, the required amount of replacement habitat shall be provided either on- or ofT site. Based upon these findings, it is concluded that the proposed project will not in and of itself result in significant adverse impacts. Although not significant in itself, the loss of introduced grassland habitat will contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources on a regional basis. These impacts which are considered significant include an overall reduction in the native biotic resources of the region and the loss of secondary foraging habitat for migratory populations of birds of prey which are winter visitors to the region. O S. Analysis of Changes in Project lmpacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan maintains the same amount of azea being disrupted by grading as the "Original" project plan. Therefore, the direct impacts associated to on-site wildlife and vegetation resources with development of the "Revised" project plan will be similaz to those associated with the "Original" project plan. The loss of on-site grassland habitat on a significant impact to off-site areas. These cumulative (or regional) wildlife impacts remain as a significant impact to ofT site areas for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. - The reduction of 542 dwelling units will result in a reduction in indirect impacts (such as "hazassment") of project development upon adjacent floral and faunal resources. No rare or endangered plants or animal species aze expected to be impacted by either the "Revised" or "Original" project plans. 4. Revised 1![itigation lEReasures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 31 %.. El~RQaV R~~®YT%B,CE~ g. fisting Conditions In its existing vacant condition, the project site consumes little or no energy, except that needed in association with agricultural use. 2. Previously-%dent~ed Project Impacts Development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will increase energy consumption for motor vehicle movement, apace and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration and air conditioning, operation and construction equipment, use of miscellaneous home appliances, energy required to produce the construction materials and all other material aspects of the project. Natural gas demand for the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is estimated at 4,745,368 cubic feet (c.f.) per month. On-site electricity demand for the "Original" Specific Plan is estimated at 8,375,385 kilowatts (kwh) per year. Although project development will increase the consumption of electrical and natural gas resources the estimated project usage is not considered to be a significant impact. 3. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts O Based upon similaz usage factors as applied to energy calculations for the "Original" O Specific Plan, the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is estimated to utilize 2,781,578 cubic feet per month of natural gas and 5,079,483 kilowatts per yeaz of electricity. These totals represent a 41.4% reduction in natural gas usage and a 39.4% reduction in electricity use. 4. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures aze proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 32 ~ ~. ~CI;~IIC ~~~~~~ 1. fisting Conditions Interstate 215 is considered both an Eligible County Scenic Highway and an Eligible State Scenic Highway. State Route 79 (Winchester Road) is also considered an Eligible County Scenic Highway. Several policies apply to uses proposed along these roadway corridors. 2. Previously-IIdentified Project Impacts The "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan contains Commercial and Very High Density Residential (17 dwelling units per acre) land uses along its perimeter with State Highway 79. The "Original" Specific Plan contains a 24 foot Landscape Development Zone and a 25 foot transportation corridor easement along State Highway 79. The project site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas which warrant preservation. Recreational trails or other public recreation facilities are not considered compatible with the noise levels and traffic volumes associated with Winchester Road. O 3. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Spec Plan involves the same amount of area being subject to landform alteration (132.9 acres) as is involved with the "Original" Spec Plan. Short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the "Revised" project plan is expected to remain unchanged from those associated with the "Original" project plan. The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the elimination of higher density residential uses from the "Revised" project plan will result in an incremental reduction in long- term project-related aesthetic and scenic highway impacts. Landscape Development Zones and required setbacks are included in the "Revised" Campos Verdes Spec Plan. 4. Revised Rgitigation fl[easures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 33 ~. ~~..1~I.~D~~I~NT~I~>~~®~R~E~ o 1. dating conditions Archaeology A review of the archaeological site records showed no archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, one site (RIV - 1730) is recorded immediately south of the project, near the I-15 -Winchester Road intersection. The site, however, has been previously mitigated and is no longer in existence. An on-site archaeological field survey, conducted in November, 1988, concluded that no cultural resources were found on the project site. Paleontology The project site is primarily composed of recent alluvium with exposures of the Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation is exposed mainly along stream channels, gullies and in road cuts. Recent grading monitoring has produced large numbers of fossil vertebrate animals from this formation within the Rancho California and Murrieta azea. The earliest recorded fossils were exposed northeast of the Ynez Road and Winchester Road intersection. Over 75 different taxa have been collected from the Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation has contained lazge numbers of significant vertebrate fossils within the Temecula azea contributing to the understanding the O Pleistocene paleontology of Southern California and possibly even North America. No paleontological resources were noted during on-site surveys conducted in November, 1988. 2. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Archaeology The absence of any significant archaeological sites or resources on-site eliminates any potential negative, impacts that would be incurred as a result of development. Paleontology Project development could expose fossils through grading and other development activities, but at the same time, can destroy these same remains. Considering its past history of fossil discovery, the Pauba Formation is considered to have a Moderate to High paleontological sensitivity. The recent alluvium found on-site is considered to have a low paleontologic sensitivity. However, the recent alluvium over the project site could be a thin veneer and grading could expose the underlying Pauba Formation. Proper mitigation measures aze required to reduce the adverse impact of development and protect the paleontological resources of the project azea. O In response to Draft EIR comments received from the San Bernazdino County Museum, an updated Paleontological Assessment (dated December 7, 1992) was 34 O performed on the Campos Verdes site by the firm of RM6V Paleo Associates. The complete teat of this Assessment is included as Attachment 1 to the Response to comments package within the Campos Verdes F5na1 EIR. This revised Paleontological Assessment includes: 1) an assessment of existing paleontologic resources unearthed at the site. This assessment was based upon the original field surveys (performed in November, 1988) and new findings resulting from the site's recent use as a borrow areas; 2) given this additional information concerning existing resources, an assessment of potential project impacts; and 3) an updated Mitigation Program in response to the proposed Mitigation Program contained within the San Bernardino County Museum letter. Updated mitigation measures are reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project. This Paleontological Assessment provides the City of Temecula with an updated assessment of paleontological resources, the result of which are included in the Responses to Comments package within the Campos Verdes Final EIR. 3. Analysis of Chaages in Project Impacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves the same amount of azea being subject to landform alteration (132.9 acres) as is involved with the "Original" Specific Plan As such, potential impacts to cultural and scientific resources associated with the "Revised" Specific Plan will remain unchanged from those associated with the "Original" project plan. O 4. Revised IU~[itigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures aze proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 35 1. i~tan~ Conditionffi The Campos Verdes project site lies adjacent to and is immediately served by Winchester and Margarita Roads to the north and west of the site, respectively, within the City of Temecula. The southern portion of the project site is divided by General Kearny Road. The review of 1990/1991 traffic volumes and roadway capacities in the project area indicate that all existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a Level of Service C or better except for the following: Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Level of Service D); Ynez Road between the Town Center Drive and Solana Way (Level of Service D); and Winchester Road between Jefferson Avenue and I-15 (Level of Service D). Signalized intersection analyses indicated that all but the following intersections currently operate at Service Level "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours: Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue (Level of Service D during AM and PM peak hours); Winchester Road/Ynez Road (Borderline Level of Service C/D during PM peak hour); Rancho California Road/I-15 Ramps (Level of Service D during AM peak hour and Level of Service D/E during PM peak hour); and Rancho California Road/Ynez Road (Level of Service D during AM and PM peak hours). O 2. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Approximately 16,184 vehicle trips would be generated daily as a result of development of the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Morning peak hour trip generation is estimated to be 997 trips while evening peak hour generation for the project is estimated to be approximately 1,179 vehicle trips. Volume capacity comparisons were made for all roadways which would provide primary access to the Campos Verdes project. FYndings of the existing plus project roadway service level analyzes that all of the assumed roadway segments would operate at Level of Service "B" or better. Traffic forecasts were developed to assess the cumulative traffic impacts of the "Original" Campos Verdes Spec Plan and other major development projects. Major intersections expected to provide direct access to the Campos Verdes project along Mazgarita Road are projected to operate at Service Level "B" or better during peak periods in yeaz 2000 development conditions with the project both with and without development of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center. The Mazgarita Road/General Kearny Road intersection would operate at a Level of Service "B" with the Campos Verdes project but without the Regional Center. The five intersections along General Keazny Road would operate at a Level of Service "A" during peak periods at ultimate O project development. 36 O Intersections along Campos Verdes Loop Road within the interior of the project site would also operate at Level of Service "C" or better (using two-way stop sign controls on the minor streets). All off-site roadway segments and intersections in the area would operate at Level of Service "C" or better in the year 2000 assuming the Campos Verdes project is not developed with the exception of the five roadway segments and seven intersections. Additional intersection capacity utilization calculations were performed for all intersections found to operate at Service Level "D" or worse with the project. The analyses indicate that with additional intersections improvements, peak hour service levels could be maintained or improved to Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections. 3. Analysis of Chaages an Project IImpacts The following discussion of changes in project impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan are based upon additional analyses performed by the traffic engineer, Wilbur Smith Associates. The results of their analyses are included as Attachment "A" to this Addendum to the Draft EIR. In addition to the project revisions previously noted within this Addendum EIR, these additional analyses reflect the closure of Starling Street and Sanderling Way through O the project site. These analyses identify the percentage roadway utilization contributions of the "Revised" Specific Plan as well as the project's percentage implementation responsibility for off-site circulation improvements. Table 7, Vehicle Trip Generation, "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan and Table 8, Vehicle Trip Generation, "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan, provide summaries of the vehicle trip generation totals associated with the "Revised" and "Original" project plans, respectively. A comparison of the two tables indicates that the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan generates a total of 12,268 vehicle trips per day, a reduction of approximately 24.2% from the total vehicle trips (16,184) associated with the "Original" Specific Plan. The reduction in morning peak hour trips is less (12.2% for the AM Peak Hour and 22.7% for the PM Peak Hour) due to the trip generation characteristics of the newly-proposed elementary school. It should be noted, however, that most of the morning peak hour trips generated by the school would be internal to the project and therefore the resulting reduction in off-site trips during morning peak hour could in fact approach the 24% percent level expected for the daily period. According to the Traffic Engineer, the reduction in the intensity of proposed land uses within the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan and the resultant reductions in project traffic as noted above will more than compensate for the closure of Starling Street and Sanderling Way. O 37 T~L>E ~ ~ffi~L~.~~~E~~~®~ "REf7I~ED" CARQP®S ~)EtDES ~PEC%FIIC P%.AlV Planning Area/ Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use o Area 2/ 1,560 125 125 Commercial Office Area 3/ Single 760 59 55 Family Residential Area 4/ 7,200 360 518 Neighborhood Retail Center Area 5/ Single 860 67 63 Family Residential Area 6/ Single 720 56 53 Family Residential Area 7/ 428 150 43 Elementary School O Area 8/ Single 560 44 41 Family Residential Area 9/ Single 180 14 13 Family Residential Project Total 12,268 875 911 Trip distribution for the "Revised" project proposal would not vary significantly from that associated with the "Original" project proposal. In the assessment of off-site impacts of the "Revised" project proposal, it is assumed that General Kearny Road will not be extended to the east to Nicolas Road. O 38 ~ TAla1~ wr/fficLi~ T%~ ~i~NlJa~~a®~ "®%8%G%NAI." CA1~0~ ~%tIDES SPEC%F%C ALAN Planning Area/ Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Area 2/ 1,560 145 146 Commercial Office Area 3/ Multi 2,495 168 177 Family Residential Area 4/ 8,000 409 574 Neighborhood Retail Center Area 5/ Multi 1,769 122 134 Family Residential Area 6/ Single 1,410 110 103 Family. Residential Area 7/ Single 650 43 45 Family Residential O Project Total 16,184 997 1,179 The Traffic Engineer has evaluated the implications of the "Revised" project land use plan (which results in 24.2% fewer vehicle trips) on off-site traffic impacts and associated mitigation needs. The analysis focuses on those off-site roadway segments and intersections which were projected in the Traffic Analysis for the "Original" Campos Verdes Spec Plan to operate at Level of Service "D" or worse (for roadway segments) or Level of Service "E" or worse (for intersections). All other roadway links and intersection would continue to operate at Levels of Service "C" and "D" or better, respectively. Table 9, Comparison of Traffic Impacts lists the off-site roadway segments and intersections which were originally projected to operate at Levels of Service "D" and "E", respectively. This table also lists the Levela of Service on these roadway segments and intersections resulting from development of the "Revised "project plan. O 39 ~~%~ ~ C®1ViP.~B%~®1~I ®F '%'lEi~'FIIC YR~AC~ Roadway Segment "Original" Project Level "Revised" Project Level of of Service Service Winchester Road (between I-15 and Ynez RdJ Ynez Road (between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek) Jefferson Avenue (between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek) Date Street (between Jefferson Ave. and Jackson Ave.) Washington Avenue (between Cherry St. and Date St.) Intersections F D D D D AM/PM Peak Hour Level of Service F D D D D AM/PM Peak Hour Level of Service Ynez Road/Winchester Road (without improvements) D/E D/E (with improvements) D/D D/D Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Road (without improvements) F/D F/D (with improvements) D/D D/D As noted above, the "Revised" project plan results in the Levels of Service on the roadway segments and intersections noted above which remain unchanged from those associated with the "Original" project plan. O O Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service on the majority of these roadway segments were not affected since these roadways are distant from the project and project-related traffic on these links represent a small portion of the total project O traffic on these roadways. 40 O Revisions to the proposed project land use will result in lower project-related traffic volumes on all on-site roadways, however, this reduction is small relative to the cumulative development year 2000 traffic projections. No modifications are suggested to the previously-identified recommended .improvements. A comparison of intersection service levels with previously recommended improvements is also presented in Table 9, above. In response to the City's request to provide general guidelines regarding implementation schedule needs for area roadway improvements, the following improvements have been recommended: a) Widen General Kearny Road to its ultimate cross-section between Margarita Road and Camino Campos Verdes prior to occupation of Planning Areas 3 and 7 of Campos Verdes Phase I; b) Install an interim signal on Mazgarita Road at Solana Way prior to 50% occupation of Campos Verdes Phase I; and c) Complete construction of Margarita Road as a 4-lane Arterial section prior to occupation of Planning Areas 2 and 4 of Campos Verdes Phase II. These guidelines should be reviewed in more detail at the time that building permits are processed for the project. Roadway Capacity Utilization values (fair share implementation responsibility assessments) identified in the earlier Traffic Studies for other area roadway improvements should be factored by 75.8% to adjust for the reduction in Campos Verdes trip generation as noted above. O In spite of these measures, the level of impacts related to circulation and traffic is considered to represent a significant adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. 4. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 41 P. UTIIII.I7['I)E~ .d1RID ~)EI~.VICE~ 1. fisting Conditions The proposed project is serviced by the utility agencies noted in Table 10, Utility Agenciea. 'I'A~I.E 1® YJTd%.I'd'I' PeQuEA1CIE~ Service Agency Water Sewer lire Police Schools Parks and Recreation Natural Gas Electricity Solid Waste Libraries Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County )}re Department City of Temecula, Police Department Temecula Valley Unified School District City of Temecula Southern California Gas Company Southern California Edison Company County of Riverside, Waste Management Department and private haulers Riverside City/County Public Library Health Services Private Hospitals 2. Previously-Identified Project Impacts Development of the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in an incremental increase in demand upon all affected public utilities and services. Table 11, Public Services and Utilities, Comparisons of Impacts, indicates the extent of these increased demands. 42 O O O O ~AIgI.~ 11 PIJf$LYC ~ERVICE~ ANID dJT'II.%~'%E~, C®R/fPARI~®1~I5 ®F %R~ACT'S Service "Original" Specific Plan "Revised" Specific Plan Water 1,530,000 gallons 285,240 gallons Sewer 816,000 gallons 151,800 gallons lire 2,201 new residents 798 new residents Police 5.1 sworn officers 1.8 sworn officers .72 civilian personnel .26 civilian personnel 1.7 patrol cars .6 patrol cars Schools ' 593 students 271 students Parks and Recreation z 11 acres 3.9 acaes Natural Gas 4,745,368 cubic ft/month 2,781,578 cubic ft./month Electricity 8,375,3875 kwh/yr. 5,079,483 kwh/yr. Solid waste 3,854 tons/yeaz 1,396 tons/yr. Libraries 2,201 new residents 798 new residents Health Services 2,201 new residents 798 new residents O ' Based upon recent student generation factors provided by the Temecula Valley Unified School District z Based on the Cit Standazd of 5.0 acres of azkland er 1 000 y p p population With the exception of the schools and pazks factors noted above, the same generation factors used in the Draft EIR as applied to the "Original" project plan were utilized in the above table. Impacts to certain services (fire, libraries, health services) relate directly to the number of project residents, the respective totals of which aze noted above. In spite of these decreases, impacts to libraries still remain as a significant adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration has been prepared. 3. Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts As noted in Table 11, Public Services and Utilities, Comparison of Impacts, all affected public service and utility agencies experience a reduction in project-related impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan as compazed to the "Original" project plan. In spite of these decreases, a significant impact to library services remain and will still require a Statement of Ovemding Considerations. O 4. Revised 1V[itigation 1~/deasures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. 43 Q. I.IIGIIIT ~ Qa%.AR,E 1. )Emsting Conditions The project site is currently vacant and emits an insignificant amount of light and glare. The proposed project is located within the 30 mile Special Lighting Area of the Mt. Palomar Observatory. 2. PreviouslyIIdentified Project Impacts The development of 850 residential units and 23.9 acres of commercial and commercial/office space within the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in the placement and installation of street lighting as required by the City of Temecula. Additionally, entry monumentation and signage as well as pazking lot lighting may also require illumination. Due to the project's location relative to the Observatory, the on-site lighting requirements, as well as potential light and glare caused as a result of reflections off buildings utilizing reflective materials, could potentially result in a condition known as "skyglow", which interferes with the use of the telescope at the observatory. 3. analysis of Changes in Project Impacts O The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the illumination of higher density residential O uses from the "Revised" project plan will result in an incremental reduction in light and glaze impacts. 4. Revised Mitigation Measures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 44 O R. ~1~A~T~R ~R~PAREDAIE~~ 1. Existing Conditions Earthquakes, floods and wildland fires are natural occurrences which cannot be prevented. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster, the County Office of Disaster Prepazedness is responsible for coordinating the various agencies to assure preparedness and recovery of such an event. 2. Previously-IIdentified Project dmpacta Potential impacts to the "Original" Campos Verdes Center Specific Plan such as seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and fire services az discussed in their respective sections of the Draft EIR. 3. Analysis of Changes in Project 1ffipacts The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (798 persons) as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan (2,20? new residents). This decrease of 1,403 project residents (63.7% of the previous total) results in fewer residents being exposed to potential seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and fire hazards. O 4. Revised RRitigation R7[easures No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained in the Draft EIR. O 45 IIV. R/fARIIIDAT®1E8.~i CIE T®PEC~ A. Cumulative lmuact .~ualvsis O The Cumulative Impact Analysis as contained oa pages V-160 through V-169 of the Campos Verdes Draft EIR. would remain unchanged with implementation of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. ~. 5ummarv of ><Jnavoidable Adverse IIms~acts Aa noted in Section I.C., Summary Analysis on pages 3 and 4 of this Addendum to the Draft EIR, significant impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan remain in the following impact areas: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and' Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife/Vegetation, Circulation and Utilities and Services (libraries) for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepazed. Project revisions as reflected within the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan have resulted in significant reductions in impacts in the impact areas of flooding, fire services, sheriff' services, schools and utilities. The project-related impacts in these areas were considered significant in the Campos Verdes Draft EIR but with implementation of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan, they have been reduced to anon-significant level. None of the net changes in project impacts noted result in the creation of new unavoidable adverse environmental impacts beyond those already identified in the Campos Verdes Draft EIR. O C. Alternatives to the Proyosed Proiect This discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project as contained on pages V-173 through V-195 of the Campos Verdes Draft EIR presents several alternatives to the proposed project. The range of alternatives selected would still apply to the "Revised" Campos Verdes Spec Plan. The quantified comparisons of impact of each alternative with the "Original" Spec Plan as contained in the Draft EIR have been revised and are reflected in the Findings of Fact which will become part of the Final EIR. It should be acknowledged that the Reduced Density Alternatives No. 1 and 2 within the Draft EIR were rejected in favor of the previous proposal, referred to herein as the "Original" Compos Verdes Specific Plan. Adoption of the "Revised" Specific Plan is occurring with the recognition that some of the reasons for rejection of these two alternatives may be applicable to the currently proposed (or "Revised") project plan. Although the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan eliminates the higher density residential uses, this land use is eliminated with the recognition that the resultant reduction of impacts is a viable trade-off to the loss of these affordable housing opportunities. In addition, an available stock of similar housing is available elsewhere within the City of Temecula and adjoining areas. O 46 O IID. Q`,rao~n I[mmallaaximma I[mmn~aota Bh® lEB.elatiommalaiw l~tw~mm ]Local 5hort- ~'®a~n B.T~ og I~,I~mm'o IEmmvla+ommmma®mmt ffimmd th®Itdaimm4®mmammc® of II.on~-T®rm I~s~oduc$i®it~. ffimmd ][sssw®a~ihl®/1[r~4a1®walbfl® Co~it~emmt of Emm®r~y ~anwmmfli®a ffimmd ®tlln®r IEB~®ousxea 3linoufld tfln® ~roiect ]8® IIffivl®memmt®d The discussion of growth inducing impacts, long-term productivity, and irretrievable commitments of resources as contained on pages V-196 through V-198 of the Draft EIR would remain unchanged with implementation of the "Revised" Campos Verdee Specific Plan. O O 47 0 ~TT~~~~~ ~u~pa.~~rrr~, ~a~ t~rt~,t.Y~Ys O 0 WILBUR SfVIITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS 3600 LIME STREET • SU(TE 226 • RIVERSIDE. CA 92501 • (9W) 274-0566 • FAX (9U9) Zia-v22U April 30, 1994 R~CI~IVE® Mr. Barry Burnell MAY 2 1994 Principal Turrini & Brink CRYOFTFIAECULA ENGINEERING OEPARTTTdENT 3242 Holladay Street, Suite 100 -- Santa Ana, California 92705 Re: Campos Verdes S.P. No. 1 /EIR Addendum Dear Barry, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has carefully reviewed the recently proposed modifications to the Campos Verdes land use plan. The proposed land use modifications O essentially involve the following: 1) All 644 multi-family residential dwelling units have been eliminated; 2) Single family residential dwelling units have increased from 206 to 308; 3) Both the commerciai office and commercial retail center have been reduced in size; and 4) An elementary school has been added to the project. A copy of the revised land use plan is attached as Exhibit A. These recent changes in the on-site circulation plan have precipitated the need to prepare the following addendum material which supplements the current traffic study document. The following sections discussed the most significant implications which these changes have on the findings of the earlier study. O ALBANY. NY • ATLANTA. GA • CAIRO. EGYPT • CHARLESTON. SC • COLUMBIA. SC • COLUMBUS. OH • DES MOINES. IA • FALLS CHURCH. VA HONG KONG • HOUSTON, TX • KNOXVILLE. TN LEXINGTON. KV a LONDON, ENGLAND LOS ANGELES. CA MIAMI. FL NEENAH, W~ NEW HAVEN. CT • OAKV+ND. CA • ORLANDO. FL • PITTSBURGH. PA • PORTSMOUTH. NH • PROVIDENCE. RI .RALEIGH, NC • RICHMOND. VA RIVERSIDE. CA • ROSELLE. IL • SAN FRANCISCO. CA • SAN JOSE. CA • SINGAPORE • TAMPA. FL • TORONTO. CANADA WASHINGTON. CC EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY Mr. Barry Burnell Campos Verdes Modifications April 30, 1994 O Page 2 Project Trip Generation Presented in Tables A-1 a and A-1 b are summaries of the previous and currently proposed project trip generation respectively. A comparison of the two indicates that the current land use plan would generate 3,916 fewer tips per day, a reduction of approximately 24 percent. The reduction in morning peak hour trips is somewhat less due to the trip generation characteristics of the elementary school. It should be noted however that most of the morning peak hour trips generated by the school would be internal to the project and therefor the resulting reduction in off-site trips during morning peak hour would in fact approach the 24 percent level expected for the daily period. Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the modified project land use would not vary significantly from that O for the previous proposal. In the assessment of off-site impact implications of the current proposal it is assumed that General Kearny Rd. will not be extended to the east to Nicolas Rd. Analysis of Traffic Impacts WSA has evaluated the implications of the currently proposed project land use (which results in approximately 24 percent fewer vehicle trips) on off-site traffic impacts and associated mitigation needs. Given the de-intensification proposed for the project, the analysis focuses only on those off-site roadway segments and intersections which were projected in the previous study to operate at Level of Service D or worse (for roadways) or Level of Service E or worse (for intersections). All other roadway links and intersections would continue to operate at Level of Service C or better. Off-site roadway segments projected in the earlier traffic study to operate at Level of Service D or worse for year 2000 conditions with the project include: o Winchester Rd. between I-15 and Ynez Rd. (LOS F - V/C = 1.11); o Ynez Rd. between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek (LOS D - V/C = 0.82); O Mr. Barry Burnell Campos Verdes Modifications O April 30, 1994 Page 3 O o Jefferson Ave. between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek (LOS D - V/C = 0.90); o Date St. between Jefferson Ave. and Jackson Ave. (LOS D - V/C = 0.81 to 0.84); and o Washington Ave. between Cherry St. and Date St. (LOS D - V/C = 0.901. With the currently proposed project land use, level of service would remain the same on all roadway segments. On the Winchester Road segment however, the projected V/C ratio would drop from 1.11 to 1.09. Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service on the majority of these roadway segments were not affected since these roadways are distant from the project and project-related traffic on these links represents such a small portion of the total projected traffic. Most of these roadway links are projected to serve less than 200 project trips per day and a reduction of 48 trips or less per day has little affect on the volume to capacity ratio. Off-site intersections projected in the earlier study to operate at Level of Service E or worse for year 2000 conditions with the project include: o Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.- A.M. ICU = 90, LOS D P.M. ICU = 94, LOS E o Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd.- A.M. ICU = 109, LOS F P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D With the currently proposed land use, the reduction in peak hour traffic at the two critical intersections would result in the following Intersection Capacity Utilization and level of service values: o Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.- A.M. ICU = 89, LOS D P.M. ICU = 93, LOS E o Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd.- A.M. ICU = 109, LOS F P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D O Mr. Barry Burnell Q Campos Verdes Modifications O April 30, 1994 Page 4 While a reduction in the ICU value was attained at the Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd. intersection,,ittyas not sufficient to improve the level of service. The reduction in project traffic at the Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd. intersection ranged from approximately 9 vehicles during the morning peak hour to approximately 20 vehicles during the evening peak hour. This reduction in total traffic was not sufficient to reduce the ICU value or improve the level of service. Recommended /mprovements Revisions to the proposed project land use will result in lower project-related traffic volumes on all on-site and off-site roadways however the reduction is small relative to the cumulative development year 2000 traffic projections. No modifications are suggested to the previously identified recommended improvements. A comparison of critical intersection service levels with previously recommended improvements is presented O below. With Orio inal Project With Current Project o Ynez Rd. & A.M. ICU = 85, LOS D A.M. ICU = 84, LOS D Winchester Rd. P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D P.M. ICU = 88, LOS D o Jefferson Ave. & A.M. ICU = 85, LOS D A.M. ICU = 84, LOS D Winchester Rd. P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D Roadway lmp/ementation /ssues In response to the City's request to provide general guidelines regarding implementation schedule needs for area roadway improvements WSA has developed the following recommendations: o Widen General Kearny Rd. to its ultimate cross-section between Margarita Rd. and Camino Campos Verdes prior to occupation of Planning Area 3 and 7 portion of Campos Verdes Phase I. O o Install interim signal on Margarita Road at Solana Way prior to 50 percent occupation of Campos Verdes Phase I. Mr. Barry Burnell Campos Verdes Modifications O April 30, 1994 Page 5 o Complete construction of Margarita Road 4-lane Arterial section prior to occupation of Planning Area 2 and 4 portions of Campos Verdes Phase II. These guidelines should be reviewed in more detailed at the time that building permits are processed for the project. Please note the following levels of project impact on Margarita Rd. and General Kearny Rd. are expressed as the percent of the maximum daily traffic capacity (utilized by Campos Verdes traffic): o Margarita Rd. - Solana Way to General Kearny Road - 6 to 8 percent - General Kearny Road to Winchester Road - 10 to 17 percent O o General Kearny Rd. Eastern project boundary to Margarita Rd. - 1 to 14 percent Roadway Capacity Utilization values (fair share implementation responsibility assessments) identified in the earlier study documents for other area roadway improvements should be factored by 76 percent to adjust for the reduction in Campos Verdes trip generation. Wilbur Smith Associates trusts that this addendum ahalysis will assist City of Temecula staff in their ongoing review of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have questions regarding this material. Sincerely yours, Wilbur Smith Associates cc o~ Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Engineer O RAD:rd QmpOe Vertles Uodats\CVAD0941ET284920 ~, ~ t ~~ - ~1 0' ~, a. ~~ olp s b =_ ~~ ~ r ;/ a ~ a ?`3 ~ i ~ 1 ~y? / , ~~~~ ` t ., - < =, ~s ~ ~I, -~ , . .,. s :r.a a ~~.~ ~ i\\\\\\ 1 M~" N' P ` ~Z~ ~~ ' ~ i1 ~ ,,. ~ rv _ ~ .L ~~ '1 y~~ i> ~~ r ~r` :111 f~~ ~~~'~ ~+~` ` 9~ L ~~ ~~1 ,..r~ i u ~~`° 1 :~ S e ~ Q I ~ '~ ~. _ ` r ~ _ ~. ~ av • inns ~ ,~ -3 to . ~ ~ :~ ,~ ~. ,> ~~ :~,y;' i i \ 1` ` f t~ ~ ~ l °/ /-~ 1,.~~ i ',,,~ ~..,~~~ ~~ ;~~ ~-%. iL ; . ~ '. •. i •i ~`. O O CS t--~ Q .~ •J .~ L Q~ U .~ F~ U .^ L 1~ O U II ~ c ~ ~ r~i o v ~ o F r, r, v~ .-. .~ .-~ 0 .i. ~ Y t~ .» O~ v~ ., v~ .-i ~ c+i en ~ r+ .-, .-~ a O c •• en ~o as ~ R. r G C P. '""' M ~ OO .--~ N N ~ ~ to ~ vi r. ai F- ~ _ ~ p ~ r. ~ .--i ~ '~ N .--i ~ .--~ V Ori G1 U ~ F a w ~ ~ x = °° ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~o w O a ~ G ¢ i--i N ~ CST N ~ ~ O ~y .-~ N ~ a ,~ ~. O ~ O ~ O O ~ O ¢ ~--i N o0 •--i .--i ~ '. F Q U * N ~ VJ ~ N ~ ^^Vl ~ z o z Q Q / Q ~;] e~ l~ c n rr vi Cn a~ Q ~ ~ c U ~ m ~a W CG NV c e+f ~ - 7 .~ c v~ ~ ~O ~ [~ ~ z ~~ W~ w~ ~`~ Wa ~a ta~ C7 ~ C7 ~ z~ C7 ~ z C7 E z C7 E ZU C7 E zw o F" cn~ a.~ Z ; i E z~~ ~ zs w z ~~ , z ~ z .~ z 77y ~~ Q o .~] C. 0. C. a a . ~e 3 O C N L1 .r M C 7 ., Q 3 U E V u~.. F a W N 0 4 E A U U a O i 3~i CC .~ cC 3--i L'. .~ E~ e~ V .~ G~ CC ^b W 0 o ~ ~ ~ 7F 0 ~ O M H d a ~ ~ p".C. f~+1 ~ O N ~ M ~ N ~ O M 0.. r-. a E- ~ _ ~ ti h ~ b h ~ ~ ~--~ 0~0 U ~ F .", o Y 7 0 ~ ~ O V~1 ~ ~ f~+1 .N-+ ~ R CL1 -~ 6. ~ C Q .. O O~ N i O O~ ~ I~ N ~ ~ C's.. ^ c (\. ~'i ..7 >' ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ¢ ~ ~ E"" Q ~ [J Q # y U Q ^y ~ ^y ~ QU y y ^41 a z Q z Q Q ~ Q Q (_] N OC ~ ~O r O~ ~O oo N ~ [~ o ~D ~ 00 .-. a Q `= c (j . `-° . ~ •C ~ •G a N cn~ ~~`a C v~~ C ~o9 t~ oo ~ a~ E- y~ w~ w °' s Wa w•" a w~°' a W~ ~a Wa z ~ a Q~ a Q. ~ ~ $ a Q. a Q. a~ Q`n a Q.~ a Q• ` ~a z•~ E zw z o E C7 zw ~ C~ z~ C7 ~ z ~ C7 zw 6 C7 zw 0 F `~ O z ~ z y ' A z z U ~ ~ z E z ~ ~ z z d Q w ~ ( j '7 7] ~ ^7 ~ a z ~ ~ ~ y ~ w ~ Cn d a fn G, .. ~ ..7 Q a a. a a a a. C. a .~ m 3 D c 0 O O O ~~~~ IJ1~T%~%EID ~C~®®I. IIDE~~HCB' O O BOARD O° EDUOR710'. n Ilii+~~br i::U Rose Vav -aa. ~~~~~~~(~~~6.~~~ IISL• IO YMIII 6 ae' Unified School Disteict ^~~ 2 1 1~~4 `'„~` Dr. DaviC cm~cr Ans d..~........ .,..e.. RiClwrtl Snorer SUPERINTENDENT "^~ Patricia 6. Novotney. Ed.D. April 18, 1994 (supplements February 28, 1994 and March 8, 1994 comments/ Steve Jiannino City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: - Campos Verdes SpaciFc Pian Conditions Dear Mr. Jiannino: The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the pro Posed Specific Plan as presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994: , 0 Elementary School Site We understand that the developer has included an 11.1 acre school site in an Alternative Land Use Plan. The District is in-favor of this site, which could become a part of the mitigation agreement. Iref 3/7 /9a dwg.) Although the site will need formal State Department of Education ISDEI approvals, many of the SDE areas of concern (airport proximity, flood plain, dam inundation) are not issues with the proposed site. The District will require good pedestrian, bus and parent vehicle access to this site. O 0 School Facilities Mitigation Agreement The number of new dwelling units is being determined for this development. Through new housing student generation data, we have determined the following generation rates in the Temecula Valley Unified School District: # of students Der dwelling unit ,~~ Elementary School: .39 Middle School: .24 High School: - .25 Total .88 The number of new students is determined by multiplyiny the new dweiiing units by these faCiUi s, v: hiult for a 306-unit single-family development would be 119 elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students. Prior to Specific Plan approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School District to ensure adequate facilities icr these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program. Section V D.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School District information as indicated in the attachments. If you have any questions, Dlease call me at 695-7340. Sincer ~ .~` Dave e Director of Facilities Development O cc: Patricia B. Novotney, Ed. D., Superintendent John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc. 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 U pril 18. 1994 ampos Verdes Specific Plan Conditions Section V D.5 (TVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency -, 4/16/941 SCHOOLS a. Existing Conditions The proposed project Ties within the Temecula Valley Unified School District fTVUSDI for educational services and facilities. The District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5! schools, two middle (grades 6-81 schools and two high Igcatles 9-121 schools. The attached Table, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent building capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommotlate the overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed. Prgiect Impacts/General Plan Re/ationshio The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation. Attached Dwellinq Units: Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit; Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit Detached Dwellinq Units: Grades K-5 - 0.39; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit; (\~\\~ Grades 9-12 - 0.25 students per unit ~/lhe Oroposed 306 single-family residential units located in Campos Verdes will generate approximately 269 students 1119 elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned above/. Because a single elementary site, and no middle or high school site is proposed within the project boundaries, the estimated 1 1 9 elementary students could be accommodated on-site, but the middle and high school students would require accommodation ofT-site. As previously mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building ca Dacity. The additional students generated by this project will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP The Campos Verdes project lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. The City General Plan atlopted in October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts. c. Genera/ P/an lmo/ementation Program In accortlance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District. prior to Specific Plan approvals. The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following tinancing mechanisms: 1. Payment of school fees 2. Dedication of land and/or facilities 3. Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District 4. Levying of a special tax 5. Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District Level of Significance After Mitigation OUDOn completion of the mitigation measures ProPOSed above, the /eve! of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an insignificant level. O\ ^ H ~V ~ T ~ ~ O } O ~ O ~ N O a N r r ~ E'-' ~ O CO r h O ~ O CO CO O O O °' O ~ ~ ~ l ~ OD~Nf~ I rOr O c~ I („~ ~ U CU ll) N O C7 r (~ l1) M C7D N W O CD _ ~ ' G r r C i C~fJ ~ U ~ Q J ~ O O ~ ~ _ CU m ~y C. I CD V CD~r~N N MC7 C0 N MQMfO V O Q C U ~ v vN ~ ~ v vZ C O Z O = N ~ ~ O R v U >- c~ O = Em fn H ~ ~ yUI B U T ~ a W Q r w N ~ Q ~ ~ U Z U = X W O ~ ~"~ Gam„ Ch OCD CO (PNCO CO CON OONN O ~O ~ ~~ ~~~~~~I ~ ~~ ~~~ W Q ~ N J Z ~ m n. ~ ~ --~ T W ~ ~ U ~ O ~ Q C O Q ~ Lr CI Cn V O. ~ O CAI CO Cn CAI O C`7 CD ~ CO O N U Z p~ CD CON 1~ Cn CC) N ~ CO I~ I~ ~ V I~ ~ N N ~ OD T ~ r C`J In t7 ~ E T T J ~ r W W __ ~ T ~j ~ TIN NN O p r F- W _ p p T L ~9 U ~_ ~ C ~ i` >, = t ~. ~ m aoi aCi ~ ~ w p fU - C = O (n ~ ~ O ~EEE~... c ~. m ~ ~ o -o -o =~,~,~ . ~ ~, ~ ~~ W W w C o o ~~ O ~ J 7 . ~ j w Y m ca o a~ m ~ N~ L j m ca m p ~ O rn o E ~ p W 'c U~ ° U U= ~ U U N d d CU (9 O ~ CU O m CU CU O O N cn Zc[~cn~>H ~HH QHHH 2 ~ V O O <ea:. ~ ar,.u rnuAeoa Sumla2 rem {;A a757t ALTE?NATIVE iAND USE D1 AN ?~~/9~ -.G.~ ~ ePb:~wn e,\ ~ / l0 O\/ ~ /. ~'\ 1•/~! \ d~ ~~~ :t,~ f _ f ~ ; ~ ~iF RORIPAUCaH rS AT~S ~ ~a ~~ "i~ ~~~ - • i• !`c ~ ``3 •. MEDRIM DENSITY ! e o t e',.~- t ~ ~.\1 '., Sf ~ ~/~`l~s\ fir! 1 `! .. i e + ~ r ~. v i,\~ar ! ~ t ~: a ~' -- r '~~' ~ ~, , ~,~,/~a'• ,mil ~'°'°""r~~4• ~;, J,13~~ R;., ~;L` ,'~_;- /,;~:_ - ,~, ~.~,,~. eke ~'~,~ ,~ ~` . ; _ ~r,;~~~ ~,;; s .\ 'G ~~~~~ j ~j ;~~~~~ MEDIUM LOW ~I ~:~J /r~: ~~ l ~\//. ~~ •J,,~• i, 122.2 AC~~~. '' }-~"'.r~~ P.0. b ~ f E2 DU ~~~~ -- ~ ^-J \ CCMMERCVIL - ` y ~ MEADCWVIEW / ~~ r ` ~ ~ v~CAhIPOSVERDES fit"' I ~ ~ ~MEOIUM.~--.`- I i- t _ ~ `11 5.9 AC r.-r- ~ ~1\ . ~~ 1 ~ 1 ~ '1 P.0. 3 a P.A.a .SCHOOL ~ ~ ~~/ !~ ~ MULTI-FAMILY .t 11.1 AC ~ Ep~ ~ I ! 1 i.1 AC 1 G~ ~ 316 DU ,\ - ~pM ILL~T~ 1 ' ~av* '' ~j. 'NOTE r me Setnol Cielta o oCl! nd m 11 , ~~- _ -\\ ectuvt Int tne. n 2 eo o«elooa 1i~ _ ~~i4~ •.\ a! MCCNm f3ClaatvW 167 db /' CCM.~tERCiA'J -^ • \ j ~., - PA 1 ~"~ ~,~ CFF'r:.E/ /. / ;/.~., .•":: ~. ST~ PART( ~ I / ~+ivl-~ {~'' 13.5 AC~ DETENT70N ~ / ~.C~ ,,. 10.6 AC ~./ //' _ r - ' yr~ ~.~ ///~. :/r~ _ ,~,a / ~ ':~,~` / /~ ±\+_ i ~~ {: r T^T.; o f17 0 0 0 O ~~®~ ~~~~ ~~E~~~~ ~ SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 EIR NO. 348 Lead Agency: O CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Pazk Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (714) 694-6400 Prepazed By: Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc. 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-7977 September, 1994 O 0 O O I. Introduction and Purpose A. Background ..........................................1 B. Purpose .............................................1 C. Summary Analysis ...............:..................... 3 II. Environmental Analysis ........................................ 3 Attachments A. P1A*+n;ng Commission Recommended Circulation Conditions of Approval B. ARitigation Monitoring Program A. igacls~round The Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved In February, 1993, an Addendum EIR to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan was prepared. The purpose of this first Addendum EIR was three-fold: 1) to respond to various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; 2) incorporate subsequently-prepared technical analyses (in the areas of O traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the concerns raised by the City or as a result of the subsequently-prepared technical studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. Subsequently, in June 1994, a second Addendum EIR to the Campos Verdes Spec Plan was prepared The purpose of this second Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report was to identify and discuss the revisions made to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan which involved a significant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units and changes in the amount of other proposed on-site land uses. The resultant changes in project impacts were identified and the need for additional mitigation measures was assessed. This second Addendum concluded that environmental impacts in the areas of Seismic Safety, Flooding, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Water Quality, Energy Resources, Scenic Highways, Circulation, Utilities and Services, Light and Glare and Disaster Preparedness were reduced as a consequence of revisions made to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. None of the net changes in project impacts resulted in the creation of new mitigation measures or unavoidable adverse environmental impacts beyond those already identified in the original Campos Verdes Draft Environmental Impact Report. ~. ose O In the course of reviewing the Campos Verdes Spec Plan, the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City staff focussed on certain mitigation measures identified in the Campos Verdes Draft EIR with the intent of identifying those mitigations that have already been accomplished through developer participation 1 in Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No. 88-12 and to O maximize the benefit to the City of other mitigation requirements. This third Addendum to the Draft EIR analyzes the mitigation requirements for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as contained in the Planning Commission's Recommended Conditions of Approval as compared to the mitigations specified in the Draft EIR and the changes analyzed in first and second Addendums to the Draft EIR. The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to be an Addendum to the Campos Verdes Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines which states: (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an Addendum to an EIR if: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project revisions, changes in circumstances surrounding the project, or additional project impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming O feasible or available); (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. (b) An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. (c) The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the Finai EIR prior to making a decision on the project. This Addendum EIR in combination with the Draft EIR, Response to Comments package, the previously-prepared first and second Addendums to the Draft EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments and technical reports constitute the Final EIR for the Campos Verdes Spec Plan. O This Addendum to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City of Temecula in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and City Guidelines for 2 O the Implementation of CEQ~1. More specifically, the City has relied on Section 15084(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepared by the applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted "screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the previously-prepared Addendum EIR, and this Addendum to the Draft EIR to reflect their own independent judgement to the extent of their ability. In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines, this Addendum - to the Draft EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, to evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any adverse effects. The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects of the project against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for development. C. summary Analysis Based upon the analyses and discussions contained in Section II., Environmental Analysis of this Addendum to the Draft EIR, the currently-proposed traffic and circulation-related Conditions of Approval relates to and conforms with O similar mitigation requirements and implementation responsibilities contained within the Campos Verdes Mitigation Monitoring Program. These Conditions of Approval refine and assist in the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. II. EIaIV%R®NMENTAI. A1~lAI.Y~IS The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Campos Verdes Spec Plan and the first Addendum to the Draft EIR identified various roadways, intersections, freeway interchanges and other traffic control devices to be impacted, either directly or cumulatively, by the Campos Verdes project. The extent of implementation responsibility of the Campos Verdes project to mitigate these project- related impacts was assigned through analyses contained in the first Addendum to the Draft EIR (pages 12 and 13 of the text and in more detail on pages 11 through 18 of Attachment C of the first Addendum). When the project was revised, the second Addendum to the Draft EIR assessed the changes in traffic-related impacts and determined that circulation impacts were reduced by approximately 24% from impact levels previously identified in the Draft EIR. This second Addendum incorporated the possible closure of two local streets, Starling Street and Sanderling Way which -. connect Campos Verdes with Roripaugh Hills development, into its analyses. In addition, the City's recently-completed Circulation Element of the General Plan, O which deleted the northeasterly extension of North General Kearny Road, was also reflected in the Traffic Analyses prepared for the second Addendum. In considering the Campos Verdes Specific Plan in light of the analyses and changes noted above, the City of Temecula Planning Commission, at their public 3 hearing of July 18, 1994, directed City Staff to re-establish Starling Street and O Sanderling Way through the proposed project. In addition, the City Staff has recently analyzed the current status of roadway and intersection improvements which have been completed or are committed to under Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No. 88-12 against the mitigation responsibility requirements previously assigned to the Campos Verdes project. As a result of all of these above considerations, the City Staff has formulated and the Planning Commission has recommended a total of eleven Conditions of Approval related to circulation. (A complete listing of these circulation-related Conditions is included as Attachment A to this Addendum.) These Conditions of Approval require a variety of traffic plans, reports and physical circulation improvements which are either attributed partially or solely to the Campos Verdes project. These Conditions are intended to mitigate impacts generated by or otherwise associated with the Campos Verdes project. Provided below is a summarized listing of these recommended circulation- related Conditions of Approval followed by an indication of the related Draft EIR mitigation measure (as listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, a copy of which is included as Attachment B to this Addendum.) Also noted below is the respective Responsible Monitoring Party and the milestone in the development process at which point the Condition would be implemented (pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Program and/or recommended Conditions of Approval). O CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Developer must enter into an agreement with the City fora "Trip Reduction Plan" per Ordinance No. 93-01 (see recommended Conditions of Approval included as Attachment A). Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 13 (see Mitigation Monitoring Program included as Attachment B) requires prepazation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan prior to any subsequent development applications in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. Responsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps or the issuance of Building Permits. This conforms with the requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for inclusion of a Plan as a condition with "any subsequent Development Application". CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Adequate primary and secondary access will be O provided for each development phase including adequate right-of--way at entries for turning lanes. 4 O Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and other off-site improvements. Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or -issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms with the requirement within the ' Condition of Approval for review of access plans at the time of submittal of individual development applications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the City General Plan, City ordinances and standazds. All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans requirements. Related Mitigation Measure: While no mitigation measures in the Draft EIR relate directly to these Conditions, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies prepazed for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan assume conformance with City General Plan requirements, City standards and ordinances and Caltrans requirements O in effect at the time of project development. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters and any associated rights-of--way within the Spec Plan, the location and number of which aze subject to approval by the City of Temecula and the Riverside Transportation Department. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 13 requires "promotion of future public transit through the adoption of appropriate planning ordinances which would require special transit-oriented design features". Responsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps or the issuance of Building Permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: All improvements have been or will be Conditions based on project traffic studies and phasing plans from Section III.A.7. of O the Specific Plan. Any substative rephasing of the project must be approved by the Planning Commission. All on- and off-site circulation improvements must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 5 Related Mitigation Measure: While no Mitigation Measures in the Draft EIR O relate directly to this Condition, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies prepared for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan assume development of roadway improvements pursuant to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: TrafTic reports analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Spec Plan shall identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 13 requires preparation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan prior to any subsequent development applications in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-O1. Mitigation Measure 11 requires that the property owner/developer be a principal participant in Winchester Assessment District 161 and the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12. Responsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation.of this Condition prior to the approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps or the issuance of Building or Occupancy Permits. This conforms with the requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with O subsequent development applications. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Traffic signals at phase one accesses along Margarita and North General Kearny Roads as required will be based on traffic signal warrant analyses. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and other off-site improvements. Responsible Monitoring Partv: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirement within the Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with subsequent development applications and provision of improvements prior to issuance of any occupancy permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for full width O improvements to Margarita Road along the entire project frontage in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross-Section of the City's General Plan and shall bond for reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Road from Solana Way to the 6 O southern project boundary. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the Developer be responsible for acxess improvements along the project boundaries. Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirements in the Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits. These traffic improvements must be completed by the development of the 235th equivalent dwelling unit. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for improvements to North General Kearny Road from Mazgarita Road easterly to the project limit, in accordance with the Specific Plan and City General Plan requirements or as approved by the Planning Director. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer to be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. O Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of the Condition prior to the recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirements in the Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for traffic signals at the following intersections and shall construct these signals pursuant to traffic signal warrants: -Mazgarita Road at Winchester Road (upgrade existing signal) -Mazgarita Road at North General Kearny Road -Mazgarita Road at Campos Verdes Lane -North General Kearny Road at Camino Campos Verdes Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. O Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department 7 Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of the Condition prior to the recordation of Final Subdivision Maps O or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirements in the Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Sanderling Way and Starling Street shall be extended to accommodate through traffic into the Roripaugh Hills development. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 12 requires the developer to be responsible to on-site circulation improvements. Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of the Condition prior to the approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps, recordation of Final Subdivision Maps, or issuance of Occupancy Permits which conforms to the intent of the Condition of Approval. CONCLUSION: Based upon the analyses contained within this Addendum to the Final EIR, the proposed circulation-related Conditions of Approval refine and O assist in the implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained within the Draft Environmental Impact Report. O 8 0 O O ~~~~~~ P%.~%1~1Qu C®R~Mi %5~%®1~ YB.EC®ft~lY%DE%D C®1lTYDY'I'd®At~ ®~ AP~'~8,®VAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~~~~~ Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Verdes) Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential units, 19.8 acres of commercial\officelchurch uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-090-001 through 004, 921-090-017,910-130-046, 911-170-004and 910-170-005 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (481 Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty- O Eight Dollars (5928.001 which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar (5850.00) fee, incompliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 71 1.41d1(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars (578.001 County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21 152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .4(c). General Conditions The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided far in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. 3. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform O with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. R:VSTAFFRPT\ISP.PCS 9!1/9a vgv, 17 4. Approval of Specific Plan No. 1, Campos Verdes, is contingent upon and shall not O become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council and an Environmental Impact Report or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Quality Act are certified by the City Council. 5. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 348 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading permits, all permit requirements necessary for altering the existing on-site blue line stream shalt be completed. The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor, along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentati-,r maps. 9. Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within t'te•site, a detailed design O manual for any commercial area within the Specific Plan shalbe submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 10. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8'h" X 1 1 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted. 11. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 12. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal. 13. The developer shall provide pedestrian access to the Commercial site (Planning Area 4) from the residential area to the east (Planning Area 5). 14. The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the O services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. R:\STAFFRP1115P.PC3 9/l/96 vgw 1 O 15. Prior to City Council approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be updated to reflect all current conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 16. Prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior to recordation of the final map for residential projects, the project applicant shall enter into a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan. 17. If any of these conditions of approval differ from the comm;tment by the Developer made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. - 18. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and Ciry Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance _ with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. 19. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT O The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Appr.~val for this project, and shall be completed at rio cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff parson of the Department of Public Works. GENERAL CONDITIONS 20. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed ., and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 21. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultatioh shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits for the ~-- ---~a--`~-' '-------~-' -~a -"'---' O various phases of development, the Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration R:\STAFFRPIIISP.PCS 9/1/94 vgw 19 for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount rn effect at the time of O payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be 52.00 per square foot, not to exceed 510,000. The Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. (Amended by Planning Commission on Juty 18, 1994) 23. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 24. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Fanning Director prior to approval e€-aRy for each subsequent development application. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) O CIRCULATION 25. As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City fora "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 26. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential, office, and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works. 27. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. 28. All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements. 29. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside O Transportation Agency (RTA). If required, additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. R:VSTAFFRP'nISP.PC3 9/1/94 vgw '20 O 30. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, as determined _, by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded a$ required by the Department of Public Works. 31. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. 32. The traffic signals at the phase one accesses from Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications shat! be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy. 33. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the O ~ABtk 235th equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of occupancy for the ~29AEM 235th EDU. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road, along the entire frontage, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's Genera! Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway with 1 10 foot full width right-of-way. ~ Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall - bond for reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Road, from Solana Way to southerly project boundary. 34. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for the improvements to North General Kearny Road, from Margarita Road to easterly project limit in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan. The cross section shall be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classification for a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of- way or as required by the Director of Public Works. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) 35. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The O Developer shall construct the traffic signals, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications at the following intersections: R:ISTAFFRPI'115P.P.^.S 9/1/Af vgw 21 - Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal) O - Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road - Margarita Road and Campos Verdes Lane - North General Kearny Road and Camino Campos Verdes 36. Sanderling Way and Starling Street shall be extended to accommodate through traffic into the Roripaugh Hills development. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Drainage 37. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 38. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCU to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 39. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 40. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the O approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 41. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the onsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 42. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 43. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 44. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. Water and Sewer 45. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and O specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWDI, and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirementsshall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. R:\STAFFRPI'~15P.PC5 9/1/94 vgw 12 O 46. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 47. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 48. Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan development. Grading 49. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development. 50. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading O permit, and accepted grading construction practices and ti:/: recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmenral-lmpact Report (EIR) document. 51. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 52. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP> implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 53. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erasion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. o ~ Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. R:\STgppRpr\1SP.PCS 9/1/96 vgw 23 Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas O which will be graded during the rainy months. Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 54. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 55. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 56. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 57. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 58. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 59. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative r.~ap or commercial parcel O map for each phase of proposed development. 60. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 61. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing 62. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 63. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. R:\STAFfRPI'\15P.PC3 9/1/94 vgw 24 O TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) provides the following conditions for Campos Verdes Specific Plan: General Requirements 64. All park facilities, slope areas, park way landscaping, trails and medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 65. Construction of the public park site, landscaping, trails and medians proposed far dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program. 66. The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park site, landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 67. All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended fir transfer to the City "in- fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for publi:..park and/or recreational O purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assess~nEnfreport shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. 68. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual. property owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA). 69. Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 70. All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by and established Home Owner's Association (HOA). Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 71. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the developer or his assignee shall enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 10.8 acre park facility located in Planning Area 1 and the detention basin in Planning Area 2. 72. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping, medians, and multi- purpose trail identified in Planning Area 9. R:ISTAFFRP1~15P.FC3 9/1/94 vgw 25 o ~~~~~~ 0 0 Y ii.. a Fr C: y ~ y d <~ O y ~ V ~ ~ ~ a m g3eF ~ ~ °' ~'; I..5 m e ~, „ ~ o a a, = = ~ o •~ p, U d a^7 _~ Z m `o_ ; V ~4 u~ U O M m y G~.y < ~ °J ° ~ g ° ~ .~ O .ai~ ~ w p> y e€ e m ~€ m `n .ta m ~ O ~ ~ . a i% o` . a U ¢ ~i 1. 0.w w ~ +mj y ~ GW y y~~ 0. ~Z uv} uvR u u u un u ~ O O G v~ m a~ ~ ~ E C E^ E C 'E'j 8 r, q rn v a u u v m O 7 -• .C y„ Z F, y E" W e ~- ~ c F' ~ E' o F .7 ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ d `o ~ E `o ~ E `c 3 `0 3 `a 3 7 V O G' ~ 'cn `~ m` v o G7 'b O ~ ,~ O ~ ~ ~'E ~ ~'E v ~ ~ u ~ ~ w = ~ u ~ w rL.a pq ~ ~ UmC UmC Ua. E Ua E Uo. E rrqq O O y .--. m Omi OOb ~ ~~ .Oa G C I.O. w e `o ° m ° o m O O ,~ O yy C O 0.~ C O Z _~ ~ ° ~ °°'2 't m ~ a. ,~ € s 9 ~ ~ <""N. d eC V~ t m e u ° n O O y F~ O O < F u a M~ u n~ ..a ~. .+ 8 G4 L. F .d o a u~ E e m ~ 2 o ~ m'b~+ ~ ~~om' as o` m o`cg b i b O c3 y a"o ~6 iC ^ ~ iF~ C '~ O w y 0. O .C '^ O ~ •a _ ^~f w ?E~ = U o m e ,~ ,~ O ~ 'raj `~ vv'f A 2 ~ u ~ ~_' -'• ~ ~ q E o ~ n u ~ m as [~ G' V V v e e N= E ° ; -~ O O .~^" N O a Y u o c t m ~ ~ e ~ e~° ~ o p a ~~ ,°-~ OD '..a ~ ~ 1, .II yG. Y c e~ O a viz .u. Ci' °^ a' S O "' A m t o ° ~T$ ~ n ~ o Z' E m$ DD y p, O ~' >o ~ . 3 Z' ~ 2 - u c ~ a r 6a ~ rt - ~ c O = as 3 m U r m m na rv w= eo r~ ch ® ~ ~ d ~ ~ U ~ ~~-o c~ Ga m o `° .C - cd m +~ [~ y GT7 m O I L =` .ri u e v y v c ~ y v O d~ E L '> ry O~ L..17 ~ Z = 3 E E y ~ v ~~ ~ T E A y e °° II e ~ ~ [il Rr _ 7 O O t~ ?~" a u m g '" mds_ ~ '° E N e ~'a ~ O m C-. p~ <~ ~_ :: c? o c ~ n~ c c u~ ~' a 3 ?.°- °. "~ v B E c `/ y m r 3 ~: :_ n m u ® OG L'. C~ w~ V~ m~n~ .__^~~>?°E vino n~ E^ C. O O O~ F' v 2 ~ c 9 ~° x '> ~ o A c' i3 a~a ~s+ wa e' " ~ F C e =_ ~ 3 g o °° ~ a `° a m: v u c~ Q u e ~ ~..~ O O Op m O °~v ~uum pvOmm'C A~Ev 'c+ S.4 c.E ~• ~" r ,', `m a E 3 w :'. a N v a m o u= Ni a a y Ci ~'. L' ~ a' V m m c y m m~ O ._ ~ L m E G O O F. 4 - ~ ~ r o O •~ G „yr O i. W 0.U ~ ?~_ v ~ n e ~ 'O c °' G °~ ~F a ~~_`= _ '°y CL Gr O W d C v~ a a -aE ~W ~; 0 ~< U rr ~ O ~ e u e_ e "F' v g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ a ~~ ~ < <~ _~ ~ l < .E :~ 2 E c :~ v' :~ $ $ $ E ~ $ ~ $ a O: v1 0: O O: ~i Crn' n _ ~ ~ ~ a ~ V' m V 6 EC ~ 6 ~ 6 EC E~ U 6 ESQ a Z p~ F q F ~' E~ F~ I Zi ` 3 3 ` 3 3 ` ~ 0 0 0 0 G V Y Y V i^ ~ u E7 E ~' ~ u ~' ~ ~ U E U Z' a ~ ' U a a a E a E `o o` `0 0 e `o e Z fs7 oz ~ .~ b> d e ~ m 8 6> w ^ > p V V _ °' a A s _ $ 6 Y W _ 8 a A ! y a y O y p. ~ o O O O o p ~ 2 `O a ~• >~ O c ~. p p ~ ~. S{L~ y O. LI P. fib L[i~ C ~.. ?_ nC a~ a ,{ 6 C C '0 a V a~ ~ C C 7 y~ O W y V v~ i V a ~ ~ u ~ C c o ~ A o ~~ rop a g SI C G z U V `!a -, 7 C V Y a> ~ V~ O oc`e V C V ' Y a o V u E ~ 7 u am U ,~ S u s , ' i a'OOQe C ~~ y $y ev3 z ~ L.. C C t~l ~~ V d ~ N; V L w ~ p: ~ a v 61 in c a rn a' ri ° E v~ ~- a G ~~s~a~~ .~ ~ E o. ~ ~ v a u ~i v O ~ ' ' sv : ~ u 'o` V a U< u m = t O :s7 f p "' c ~ 5 v ~ Y~ y Ln ~' C~ q C A~' t C u t O T~~ u C 0 9 J O C - O Vf c L C V 'Z 8~ R O L O I ~ ~ J Z O F U O U ~ Y ° e p c e ~ e tr7 F ~ O ~• Y ° 9 'v. 3 =o ~ ~ X g `o ~ m' cn `off c' a O ff ~'~~ 2 g~ $ e o o 'S o e `o € ~ 8 ~ € e o w ~ V =" = ~ ~ A ~ W u° u ~ =" ~ y u E ~ V u E ~ y u ~ y u ~ y $ ~ C E m a I Y E~ E E E E E E E E E u E ~ F ~° F ~ F a [= °. Y a Y c °1 a c Z o F A Y D ~ F F F ~ ~ ~~ o v `0 3 0 ~ E `o ~ `o ~ O `o ~ C] a ~ `o ~ `o _ _ ~i C G b A ~? y L„' V C ~.'~ C ~. A C Z+ q C ~ + q C yT N T C J UD. E UmC ~ U4 Ua. Ua . Ua Uo: - A Ja ~ ~ 002 po oa g g `oo.E $$ o`A Z {i~ C Z m $ 4` W V ~ u >A C tJ C R 9F n R .cJ >A> w` N .J C ~.. . 0~~ 9 • G vi C V O~ n ~ ~9 F~ Y V 6~ m~ ? 6- O Y , Y ~ dC O C~ _ L O V U~ 0 G n L ~ N ~ y~= ~ ro ~ m ~~ c ~ E., .7 C O °' a O e o O C p E '~ E ° - O A E p~ E $ V N c B p E O q _ '$ E . w ~ m m .~ a o Y .. . E ' G a ` Y` ~: $ 2 e g a o f ~ c ° m o m a ~~ c m E ~ 'o c D._ D a`ii.f a~$Ec a`o i`o a`¢.~ i`o $Ec m ~ ~' 'J' e yam. v p Y V O e e o O O V ~ v m n~ C v m ~ C - A u N ~ ~ _ U U ` L - U V A Y A ` L ~j r ~ , '~ ~ C .~ ~~ 'u V •. A 'O C A 9 ~ = C _ ` _ Y C O O .. 6 __ a 'O .~ r _ r L J N `~ m ccC C Y 9 V= m V C Y~ ~ ~ A 3 a ~~ A m a r L G L`A A~ a e m O y c a T A G . _ U o E o c E 4 g r = .; ~ ~ J E r~ r O B ~ v y E > o ° :> `0 4 M 1° c ~E t ' ~ A c c W d L' e ` o '" $. O ~ y E F u ,°-' v E» u ?' _ u ~u u ~u c u c L c A '= p m ' u L ` '° o N e. B O ~ °e E = ~ V ° E :° `' Y c z > ~ p_ ~ > ° - F ~ o e .E ~ c B r ~ e . y y N p yN~ V ty~ y ~ W 9 7 r' + ` p o C P N A A y A E ~° = L N N A C <'~ C~ N p E w V1 G E C v , L N A V . 6 N A V 6 A N A LL mom- 6~r~n .C N L A A W 6L m o c ~ .a`o E mo vu `o M e= ~e J •° ~ N g O c~ D L O u ~ u c A> p . - N ~ ~ e e Z ~ L ` Y t='' pumd°Eo cv° °uoW ~ ~ -u9 ~°? ~' ~ Y L U L Y A ~' ~ C. Z p C B V~ p A = .' y 3 .w u U L ~ ;7 LU J m a w ~~~~~ o Li O u vi A`=e a`~s a U •~ ~~e y ~ . N A e . c - c ~ ~ _ ag U U C ~ h $ .~ E A kl L ~ A y ~ O Ls7 ~ ~ ~ A 'C ~ Y _ U O L U L . C q~ „' A Z N n 6L C A 3 6 n q 4 O ~ ~3 ' E . r v ~ 0 vi z O U ~ F =oa ~ ~ ~I a w~ mZ % O z ~o~ zF zm oz F F V p p~ 2 2 ~ ~1 di Z O ~ F ~ < ~ V m fI :+ n ~'E c m o ~ t L 9 u = ' ~ V T1 y~ q ~ 6 O N ~ .N E - 3 . c E m e O O O Z O ~e U O U ~ b7 m e F O _ ~ .~ O mod X m 8 E I ~ 2 0 ~e ~ tlri o. `d i0 € N V . a V -' ~ q . r uY. = ~ ~' V ~ ~V u u uo~ u v9 m a Z O s u~ F~ u F q u ~' F g I 0 _ ~9Za f 03 ~ °=E '3=E C '- c w ~- ? 1° U a E U m C U a m C ~ e Z fa7 O Z '~ e w 9 € F ~ ~_ 0OO y V G~ o u ~ ~ u ` 'o F y O O m C • ~'~ m p 0 e O ~ eY O m ~ C C._ e`. `o C m s {yl J ~a Z O s F G J ~; !< ii G 'v' a o O a ~ •AE'~ s°w= aq O <3m G m c W u o O '~ b = 3 ~ c - ~ ~ m N m ~ ~ QQ ~ O v m ~ W .~ a c . c d 0 9 00 A ~ = ~ e ~ L ~ m d r ~c v m ~ ~ 3 e ~ `o N c C n '~, @ E ec E Y ~m_A ~ m °~~ Y .. 'C ~G 9 6 9 d m C 9 C 0 9 ~' c c O~ 'J N c¢ j L~ y R m 9 ui 'A rt 0~ e~ n U c O d ^ L m~ N a m N Q LL Y L? ~ e Q v ~E ~ ~ a e 0 u ~ dv ~~ O C O ~ L Y ~ Y ~ V E a ~ ~ a m A= Q 8 u~ ` v s `° o E u u s e u m e a p y e `~ a E~ o. g 'o ~ o 'Y-a ~ m (V Y ~ V C n m°v r E 3a9 .°. P.E aaCg ~'E ~ Y` m m` E f Y Y Yq ~ 9 O y'j Y LL P ~`.. as C 3 >,a u ~~ - Y 6 ~ a a '~ '~.i- c E U ` Y Y ~ N c u n` ~ 9 c e Y c. ~ n ~Y Am',; ~ c c a s ~ - u E W 'L L r c > 0 ~e °a ~ ~ O m < m < F ^ _ ~ ~o „ m. Z o d V m' ~~g l o 0 ~< _ ~ .9 _ ~ j d e ~ a .a ~i e ~ e u ~ e .°. ~ s'+Z ~ E E ZD E- F c I Q m Z~ o o m ~ o m E c ` aL ~ Z. ~ v n L`•~ u Ua C7 m0 `o `o ' ~ ' € € U~ =~ pu F~ a m o m O C - e - e 2 0 °n O` a`C im ~ 8 p n ` m - y U n - m ~ ' ~ ~ y ~•y ~Y u U U E T ~ E i. E H L S C Y L ~ L d u ~ ~ . : u Lt Y V . m m Vl d'i ~ O a Q U O U p C ~ O A y m` L ~ O~ O O C ! y C G R O tl F ~ .7 G ~L ~ ~ 3 .~ me N. ~ p 0 O y F m 0 m ~ Y u y _ e e a o " ' y n c ~ A y ~ ~ ~ C t ~ a v ~' n n L m u A v ~ ~ p ~ 00 ~ fTi C OP G ~ L ep 'a e b u 'a a ° ~ V e O n ~ ~ ~ u ~i o u c C O D o w - k7t ~ 9 a" p ~. G ._ a.., n ~ G m y ~ C Y S _ _ (~ ~ 3> ~ m ~ a~~ ~ m ~ ~ Q C ~ C ac .'. d 2 E Z O F U U ~ O e e c ~ c e °e °e ~ F ° n ~o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ A ~~~ ~ ~~ o0 00 0 00 =a oa =o 0 ~ ~$ §B ~B „€ 8B 8g 8g 8B ~€ Chi Chi CJ~ a Ctn Chi Cti z~ a ~ 6~ ~ t ~ 6 d = ~ 6 _ U 6 v 6 v 6 V 6 u 6 U 6 Y 6 ~'L V Y Y V Y V Y V V V V V V V V ma ~ EC F E~ ED EO EO EC EO 'eC EC Zp ~7 F~ E~ E=~ :=~ F~ F=~ =~ F~ F z 3 3 3 ` 3 ` ` 3 3 ` 3 3 ~ d p o 0 0 0 -_ 0 `0 `c3 ~ CCU Y Y G U c Y Y Y Y Y ~L ~ ' ~~ ~ ~`L = ' E 2~a ' E any a z,,a c ' Z,a a ' a.a c ' ~,,a c ' U a E U i E U a U a J i E U a E U a E U e . E U a E ~ $ `o `o `o o o` `o W $ `c ` `o o `o ` `o c `o _ o o € F p S9 W 6~ 69 N y 9 c V 9 9 9 R e ['! G~ ~ ~ 6L 6L r a 6L ~ 6L 1L 6L N L C7 i:L2 w N = :~ ~ ~ fj O w fA O '~ Zj. O ° y = 1R1~~ O ~° y W y A N ~ i. _ pp O Y .J m O C ~ O O O O rt 2 .~ e~ E o ` ` o ~ g ` o e n~ ,`o_ G `~ ° e g. E c ' p i g ` o e ~' ~ e~ o G ~ a i%~ 8 s a ii~ iiL~ a ~ u.~ 8 c a iif a"u.~ c`,ii~ a` 9 ~O L G 3 9 m 8 O ? C N N A O G b f N m 6 N . n N = '' ~ L E 6? 9 =_ ~ 6Q Q r . 0 ~ ~ y ({/i j~ c 9 3 ` A N y¢~ ~ 3 3 L u . 4' ON u cc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ a ~ e O LC L y '° ~ ri' c `° C m c ~ `° E ~ n ri ' e `° 5 A c 3 i i a i °1 Gc 2 N m,°u ~ y a - ~ U 2 m Y V ! n G 3 c Y ~ 5, a V _ b O p a ` ' ~_~ C ii ~ M 6 1 G m E <~ C d E ~ L ~ C F` 7 _ ° ` M d N C .J - ° ~ .~ O T d 6 ° E N N` C 5 e = . c m .5 _ - o m ' n m o d = m . Y a a u e e E_ E ~ Y E_ ~~ ~ a e~ 9 ~~_ e o a ~ ' _ _ Z ~ e~ E o Y ~ ~ ^o v Y = ._ E~= 9 u O ter' °~ O R 9 O.0 V t ILN N G< ~ 6'a O Y 5 E C 9= O~ R> L > $~ ~ N ~^ !F~ 'DUB f ~ E ~ ~ a0,a rv n a ~~ ~ m ! A x O a = O'C O = Y Y = U ~ V ap O O J q O ` = Y 6 Y 6 V . S ~ O H a Z 1 ' F A= L O e 9 G O G Q Um E - 5. ~5', ~ ~ = 3 b 3 0 ~e U ~u i ~ ~ ~ O .z ~ ~ 3 F 9 4. n H 9 v c a .Z Y 8 e 8 ~ 8 m' m' ~EOE..d E'~ c~ ~ F~ _ U ~ ° o •°- o `o ° c ° ° a dg 9B ~€ 6:~ ~~ ~ §• B ~ € 3 Q0~ Ct~i .i 6~i ~aY. a d: ~ = ' m Z E C E O E C E E E E E E Zp~ F=,J F~ F~ F ~ F a F F'o `o o` 4 ~ D ~Z~ `03 `03 `03 `o~ `o~ om O v u Y E m ~ Z, ~ ~ L, ~ u Z' ~ u Z' a 2~ m L. c Ue. E Ua E Ud E Uo. Uo. Ua ~co_w8 `oc `o `o° '8 `ocv e o m o c 8 ~ ~ m e F O a w $° ~ Y a 9° ~~~ o '~ € V~ m~ r~ a y M a m `~yyj `~ ~ d A a s m O p..7 O Z O ~ O O C ~ .i O G O m~ A O 9 m Y °.~ u '.1 c u e 2 C. ~ o`~~E'o o°e w' ° o~gEo ~~E° o`_m' a`F~$a aii~ i~ a`FF$n im$~ is q C 9 C y C e C Y" 9 m O e a s 4 A e ~ 2 c> y `u e c e~ a e c m no. my nr7 U m $ c$ ~ 9 " a c c c f N a 'o n ' u u `o a = ~ u e o u c Y `p U U u ~> u 'a u ~ '> `o g m a '> 0 9 '> Y7 O u° ~ d Y E c e ma me~~u°a Yoh C~32 C@'~°'cA C~~ Co . ~' C F C "'' N y 6 ~ a C 6d L pCp M N d ppC Al d C `O H a cN. m~ E `~' m ti V E ° U '~' °~ A m 6 Y 1 C p V ~. O C R ' v C a0 ~ W Y r E ~c ~Y > E o ~ s U ~ ~ ~ E > ~ E ~ ~ v a o b ° F3 ° ~~_ A ° ~ ~ ° s C~ e~ Y .`S °' 3 e m s= a°=~ o ~ '~, a F$ 'e ~ m .E U s c •R d h c ,? ~ iO U O e F m o s u `o .q° S. m '" e 0~ rA u `° E Or w u E V Y 4 0=_ ~ 9 '° Q y 9 0r y n 0`~ c n g O n~ 'a 3 p s ~ Y '" °~ rv D s e T v s r C B Y Y W n 7 m ~ ~ F n °u u n~ ~ u E= ~ a °u `u ~~ 8 0$ B`' s` f a n .E a Q E 9 u: u c m ~ 'mac>3a•eE <w~'Eu yuo~?9 u'"ev r'EW ~v'>~° nmE-u~=n` V O C Y O O [? L T C f~ C 9 C p C 'pp C ~ OD C E C~ G 6 ~~ A L L C ^ 9 ~ ~ V F' N F G 6 {S A O V r Y C V ~ Y Y U V V Q A Y A V A Y c `~ n$ O `o n o m e n E w E fil E o 8i e E F, °- E C~ f F` a5 „ c ~ ~ u p Y 'u c E O O. ~ m CCCrrr J `o '» •„ ~ w {y ! a e 6•. e a A yf n e '~ ~ ~ `~ E ~ e y ~ m E o w' ~... .F~ Z O T O UDC F ~~ ~I 6 .mod V 9 Zy Z C f F Eia O sF zm oz 0 <~ O~~ ~ c~ U 6~y. d N S .Q A J~ D ~ L C " .~ L Y A ~ A Y Y O A Z 9 ~ ~ y W u 3 E m e ~ u F~ ~ ~~ o c ~~ u ~ V V 9 C '~ ` E u Z y u n o H~ ` n 3p • ~ E m E ~9 y o O~i mf U s b 3_ A~ a s °. e o YJJp~~q~ O-C'~ Y8 ~~ L Ay 3- c g s ~ J V~ v C O ~ ~O C •f R'-m8 9 ~ 9 T6> o - e 'e ~ '6 u e ~ u p v a Eo Y o u v° a 3 ~ ?' °- ° a °- 3 Y v~ w E' n tS 'E c c n ~ `u ~ ro O ~a UG ~ 1 O m m e e f 9 O yZ m m Q~ ~ O O e 9 e •'- a ~ ~ ~ € .a ~a d Z` ri E' ~ V Z Yu `vp u v`4 yy p ° ° • Z f F e F e 4 G A FF L O i `o ~ E `o ~ ~ 4 yr ~ O 9 ~ UmC Um~ o $ e o $ d Z {~ v o. ~ ~ O Z c ~ c ;. V~ .~ i E ~ .~ i A F...1 o m 9 ° o m u ^ O F ~ _ L ~ _ L 6 v Y a 'a o ~ V ` a m r= i m E ~, 0 0 U ~' e e u v ~ E E T y T y H d W ~ R a ~ a T. ~ N W ~ a ~ ~ L - C ~n ~ • LY i K ;~ ~ U O ~ O Z u - - v - {~ Y i. 6 C f ~ e w ~ N 8 J y n w CL C G L ~ _ d T N Y 9 ~~ ?•E n ~~_ ~. u Y ` Y m n u tqq p .C N m L 4 Y i+ v C_ y V .7 ~. V O ~ /^ \ / \' 1 I C as \ / \ / V m E E = O V ~ ° A .~ c a e Z O ~~.. a U~ O m m m '~' Z C~7 V V 0 •B C ~ {r,' ~ a .'J c 9 a .9- c L ~ Nd ny wy V ~ ~ W ~ w ~ A ~ V m't E~ V 6 EB O 6 EO V 6 ~p ~ 3 ` 03 3 3 ` ~~ 0 a 0 C f ~ v u u i, = 8 Z= u i' ; u L• ~ u U a E U d E U a E U i E O 0 O p m C ~ e e m Z J 9 9 < F '°R € ~ € " ~ € u ' O i . n ~ ._ i S ' O m O m r O m ~ y ! G i Z C O W C_ p O M C O q m C ' a`C7 iC7 iC~ ~ eu ^S ~= y o b ~~ C y N- G a m C C N ~ m c C m C D ^ C R G. A y 9 O ~ R~ 'J A U y Sri {y H~ u e c 6 L Y 3 V 3 m ~ m i. 0 .. C= 6c ~ V w u u u y a ` 1 ~ 6 U m e ~ ° D: ~ u ~~ O C O L g9 _ m ~ N C C y C m- Y tl vl U .-C 'Oa u.E E ~ vi 6 -A .. na = 6 R m a y i= c ~ ~ b~ e o~ c~ u m o Z 1 t 9 ` e - m ° o a v Q` 3 a ~' - O z u ~ o e O ~ o_ E c n F 4 ~~ V d F ~ q v u O ~ ~ ~ L c v U Q 6 Q E `v ' =wH= =8~~8. =_8wo $ c ~ o `c ~ _ g~~ ~ n 8 u o 0 A al ~ - . ~_ e= Z7 ~ e ~'~ O x `~ ~ u `°" e Lr J~ O Q . O c _. u 9 u y {s7 6 ~ c run = V im ~ N a ~ w ~ u . ` 3~ E ~ v 8 e~ € o 'm r'm n c rv u~ rt> ~ u '0 3 `m E N > v` > c` >u ~ ~ e u 9 A_ e N r U 6 O E L N C O 'j ~ 0~ ~Y ~' 6~ m G. :i] m 9 u~ m o .B ~ t i° •3 0 9 ~'o ~$?= 9 o T, . u .y -e 2 c e y u u u m c .~ v = n ~ E `0 5 8'~ 2 E n ~ m~~ E°~ 9` 'c o~`o 0 0 ~~e= m ~ u H u e 0 O L 9 6 ~ 6 ~ Y Z O ~a U ~i C m e m e m e F _ _ _ .Z V V V =Od I 0 0 0 .a .i =i m G7 mZ ~ a E~ ~ Z F~ I O g ~ `o ` m d o 03 d ~ C ~ ~ ~ y ~ 3 C 3 C ~ ± U a E c 7 ai H 0 O Z ~ 9 OF ha F ~ ~ m ~ ^~ ~ e C a V Om °~'o Z U i ~ dy E ~ `~' `m '~3y.a `m n _ I O O H ~ V ~ ~~ d E E3 '3 a ab ~ .. ~ r ~ Z 3 ~ O ~ 8 u <y 'c° ~ ~g pEm U ~ e °.= 2 E t ~ 3 u ~~ aP AC Za a mf EH V' ~tt] D "' ~. u °'°. Z E O O 0 Z O U U ~ O ~ a a 9 f ~ ~ 7 C d fi ! o `o o u E ~ o u o u o u ~E ~ ~E ~ ~E ~ r ~ ~ u ~ u ~ u ~ u Q {~ ~.J ~ 9 a0.' _a' _C 2C L M€ w€ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ W v c e ° .i .a 'v. m° e ii m° 'am 'am d= `o iO ~ _d . o f m ~ A s [i7 (,~ m U 6 E C p A ~ 6 E C pp~ V 6 V 6 m E C E G a ~ F U 3 F U ZF ~ . ~ 3 F~ F~ e g za ` 3 ~C ` 3 ~~ ` 3 3 . 0 0 0 0 o f v U_ ~ u U u` ~ u y L,~u U~= ~~ ~ UE~ L~a~ ~. -ye Ua E C~'u Ua E CE Ui E 'Ui E 9 m O O p y .L ~ N W N 6 6 d " oz B ~~ z r c z 0 A y V m~ 0 O {Y pp ~ 2 ° u m~ 9 c ~~ O O u~ u _ O A~~ a 6 n 6 a 6 ~ a Q ~ L ~ 6 ~ 6 = 6 R N 9 Y c m ~ 'y~ V C V N y~ A V m o~= ° =a c `° E A . X m oX roo.K~ U y O u C~ 9 A C !q ~° V p R U tii 0 ~ u ° v c ac ~ u s o ° e m uu aro a an d 4" `A ~ a ag F Q 8 V 3 b F" O~~ rt } C N M m $° X Q Q U O V K y er a =° er c e~ U°~ B u U o '° n L O Z A O° Z C7 tai ~ v C~ L m 0 L c y t O n C O C~ U u W Va L~ p~ ' V- 0 Z ~ '6 0 '"u U ~_` pc u, tr. ° ` a ` `` O~ t i ~ 2 m _ z a e v e Q E o .p a L ~ ~ ~ ._ : m6 . Q . . ~ ~~ ~ _ 0 u E ~ O~ ~ .W. a ~ U U ° e _ ° a~. m _u ~ m ,, c m" a u ~ o c u$ V -O .n v aL 3 e u c t ~o O c e_ m - A _ e ~ . a u 3 H° e ~ e 0` t F O u E Z n C u 8 C~ s ~ -o ~ y u u' v$ a E' m- A ° 5~ a° u W c z ~ ^' n ~ a 'E ~ U e o V a C~ YL. O Y V Q C y N ~ 6 V OVG C t V V =V, W= A ~` E Y '3 ~ O L ~n .6 C W L C C A L J A -0 S V L C° Y Y V V R Q V V V a Y W C 0 C i h A > _ _ N N V V = S L W 0 c 0 . a ~ . . O f Q~ u C 3 O u s ` Q ~ y ~ ~ e E m s A ~ O ~~ 3~ m 6 ~~ m 0 o O Q 3 u' n qq .P a O V E N Y C E p R K y~ C G Y V C 3 V C S 9 •G V .C C E L 9 ~ Y ~ Y ` O 6 q a w R ~a S pp C O V A~ 3 V V Fa Y ~p E' 7 '~ °L C N F t~ 9 a L` A v' ° V V° V a A o cr o 3 a $u` cF C~.3F m A -~ 7Rt V V °~ w V G3 ~~ ~ ` >~- w . a u u W na W o c ° ° u Q ~ n u r E a ° Z L 4s7 ' u ~ ~ c ° V ~ ~, _ ~ " c c ..t d ~ •n ~ ._ ~ a w Z ~ O ~¢ ~ t U ~ ~ ~ O _~ e_ c o o e F ~ o ~ °rv:S _ ~ ~ ~ OgB ~ 50 G X. e I O "~! O O ~ y O GG.. °~< ~~ ~ a; O x~~ s, =i V ~d ~i of ~ .a g°' d ~ S 4= q~ q y~ .] V Z E ~ S ~ u po u a EO 'u c Y m yp~ ~~ C E ~ ' E^ EL ' F S7 F o F~ F~ {. ~' I ~ 3~ ~Z ` ` 3 3 ` 3 ` 3 ` y 0 0 0 0 c {i1 ~ Y v •E u_ C ~ v ~ V ~ u ~ Z, c ~,? ~ ~~ ~~ ~D U~}~ Ua. E Ua' E Ui E Ue'. E `o a `o `o `o Z~ s °° a a oZ ~~ ~~ a ~ ~ • ; d =~ As as _ F€ 3 ~ m o m o m - O o m - c O~ ~~ u E o w `° O m `0 o 'w a a` O C ~ a` U a` O a` D C C m C O C " O ° V C m ° V c m A ~ ~ N N C ~ ~ C ~ G I U V g e m u E u ~ ~ 1 Y ~ ~ O O w r > O > O wa C~ Q O.E a W C~ C~ C fV y y ~ .C .i d C C1 y C ~o N . ~ N 6 R S R N W W V N N 4 N R 6. U br V tl 9 Ji C C .~ b N C T 8 V L L L ~ •EC ~ ~ i 9 ~` ` ~' Vm .A y ~ p n~ C L v . p~ n e C e s uO P A ° m p° ? > . m~ O °~ u ' O x O~ L ~ u E` L .C u f_ rt V rt O ~ y r u QN cE> 3~~ OwVL u~yy ~O'L ` n O ~ ~aCi n O«i'~Oy ~n0 '~ 0 3 ni ° ~ _ ~ O LD 3~ Y w p ~ L Q M ~< v 3 0 .n 3 E -u ~ F -o 3 - m m m 3 v m~ u o h ~ Cg F ~ 3 8 - u m~ = ,` ° o ~ ~'~.~II ~i'u? . ~'acc u~$~E cb'm 3'-~'~ : ~ ° r~u BV <u ma-u `v 'g ~uc ~o° o r~ 6Ln - e mp~ -° Cc mua N°° y o Nmn ~ m E V 1 ~ ~ .3 me_'n ' > -• r > ~ u ~~L u i 66 O.mL {I . . ..~ .N W .. i N C°V NO°'O L o` ~ ~ ° m E ° u ~ ` ? n U F c o u o c e' o y? e ~ O Z u e~ a~ u v .°. ei0. °u 6 ~ Si G ~ E V .y _ ~ ~ ~! ~ U ° y m m A U E N V .~ C q C y' H e m c p N R H C N ~'. ° N ~ Z O ?~ a CU O U rr 0 o u S e a fsl Y Q ' u 9 ~ O d ~ ~ ~ ° ° o ~ C r ~~! ~ 9 e ' y 6~ S p O O < m e_ m V ~R • i0 L W C 9 G O ~ 6 u ~:: ism U o: d, aE w W =~ .d V m u u E G u 6 E~ u a ~ ~ u a ZO 7 E' F= q E F~ E G F= y ~ I , ~ e z o 3 ` ` 3 ` 3 ` 3 ~ . 0 0 0 0 p Y F v u v v Z`~~ Z~~ ~~E La c Uo. E Uo. E Ui ~ Ui E e - o` e ° o Z fr7 °O ~ u ~ ._ m c OZp E~ C ~~ 9 $y V y WW o e o $ a o a s vi w u . E ~ - - o f 2 ~ c m S a ~ c W ? u CS 4 a`i%~ iC '° ?. o A i v e t c 0 ~ v~ v~ R e == i0 '6' E m~ y O u U~ E g~ a°~ c 3 0 ~' U 3 u : .°. ° ~ O o 3 u li ~, • u x7 p i d L' > c~ ~ O° n e m u~ • > p~ u u 0 0: n tio. ~~'B ~ M V 'm r O e ~ 4 $~ yy 6 L~ p N~~ C ~ y•S ~ y V N A~ m N v 9 N a C N W E 4 ~- v m Z ~ ~ c ~ > `o q y O S O ~ e ~ _e ~ a C .~ F:,~ u9 ~ °og ` C '~ O c D e ~ ' u- ~ ~j n c T p n e N U m~ q c ._ _. w _ _. e '~ 'n N ~ 9 c u ° 9 ~ u ° o c` 3 ~ _ ° E v e d d u u- ° o sl ~ u r ~ ~ `- y m V 3 7 w ~ ~ a° a Z' e G ~ ~+i p ~ N R Y ~ p N O Q' 0 0 ~Q u O C O Q 1j O O Y C C C C V F ~ E V .E .E ~ C W d d S ~T.. V u yy 66 Y ~~ p,6 V ~~ E O~ • m m m L 6 ° a - = ~ o~ ~ ~ l ~ ~S ~ S = ~" ~ o o ~ V cr] e ~ m 5 {y, m a {s. e ~ e x S ~ 9 ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ; S L € W 9 s W ~ 9 s `W _ ~ ~, O m p CC ~ FF ~ CC ~ _ ~.CC N O 9 9 C O C C C C ~ C ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ t a G y W ~ C O D ~ t 9 m C! m u o. ~ ~ u u u u° v7 u E 'e 'C ~ .C $ C a ~ ~° €° ~° ~ ~. zu =E =E z~ H ~ z I F~ F~ F ~' F ,y ~ u o °e ~ F ~ m E m W` C `W m E F ~ 3 ` 3 E W E =3 Y m $ ° a ° ~ a `off ° c ~z a 0 0 `03 `03 ~ m E `o ' ~ 9 S 6 C` ~ V Li ~ V ~' -.G'J V ~`? Y om? -9 Y ~` A 'J Y g 7 y V Op L' Ua. E Ue. E Ua E Ua E UamC Ua C 1% Cg .: t5p Uti. ~ ° E z ~ t3 `~ ~ W m $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ € 3 9 °°o m = ~ € € F C = o ~ u D. =i O (~ ~ y ~ o. ~ t t L - F,pp f 2 ~ e m~ e 8 m~ e$ c m e mo e ~ ~ '> c ~~_ c ~ ~_ W ~ a W O ~ o 'g a .j a '~ an 'g 2 ° m > ? m `o_ m o`_ o_ a` V D `m G W D e D a` `o a` `o a` `o a` o a` `o '~ ~ T n A ' m C ,~ 0 O y 9 V 9 y C y C W ri W Y+ S. ' y _ W 0~ ~ O~ U y m ~'. C y C m _ = `p ~ ` 0 in O ~ O O w e ~ C w O ~ O O ;w O ; U a `W ~ E = E o: u 0 u 6 ° v 8 N ~ 6 H j a s E fi ~ a = ~ ~ ~ P ~~ ~~ ~ _ ~ ~u ~E ~ ~y ~~ c o ~Y ~E c ~ VI L q {Q Vl U C: ' L ~ O 0 N V1 (? ~ p C Z W } > N (Y. i W y N 'Y. L W y N C. t W y E W c E , u •_ Y y y N L N W N E ~ O r L ~' r~ L ~ ~ n~ ~ w N y N L N O N E N U uJ C W N g W V 1 _ C L N ~n W U C L N 'u~ W V 1 J C L N N W V C `a Y 8 w 0 L v~' - U w N E v ~ O ~ u h '~~ c E~ 0 ~ ° E OZ c ~ =°o ~ O 0 F~ .6 m ' ' O u u~ e m o $ O u u .o o N u ~ ~,~j y E n v ~ uWr ~ ?NN c 9 . N •~ - y o n t 9r ~ 2^ Y ~ u E a m Y u Y n O g U ' F_ ~ o E W L ~ ~ ~ W a W F o. $ w ~ Q E E N `~ - ~ s m'? _ v a e~ u 6 u~ E N U 00 C ~~ LiI N W T O' q~ N U U w E E V 3 S m t.=_ m A ~ ~ y O ' M t q C C o f ^ aF ° ~ ~ ~ g ~'W 8 / \ U 3a Z I L m W ._ 'E - c. / /\ / 's 7 ~ •K u E e v E o e` A L/ ~i ~ o F o O d O Q p 0 d O c u 6 ~ D O ~ C C 0 9 ~ N O ~ 6. ~1 N O 4 w n N W V Z O ~a U ri O ro c ~ e F 9 : 9 .? _ ~' Z ~ m m =oa ~ ~~ a; ~' a =i ~i R~.' > R Y V ~ V Y tp ~ V Y 0 Z m l E V1 E VI y~~ Z F$ F ~ =~ A c A e oz d `o ~ E ~ o ~ E ~ ar ~' 9 Z„~ a 9 Z.E a UmG Um~ ~ ~ 9 ~ Z 47 ~ a ' - <F ~,a Ya V ~ m e r m e F_ ~ O q O . ~ m ~ m a"o a"o D m c w o t u ~ _ ~ m „_, c ~~ 3 o. er E UU Y o o ' 9 °~6 i C ~ u n ~ E `° A Y (~O C$ VId 5 v ? U ee N N V , _ !_ ~qt~ N F V L 6 9 N C R . Y O ~ ` j L 9 L E ~ o ~ c ~ i F c C G V A € Y Y 7 'n ~ A i y u l Y Y J 00 .N ~ ^~ Y`J O. C O m C N C N . .1, Y ~ T M C C Y Y ~ Y ! I T m L q R y R Liz G V ~ y 9 ~ V 9 E E N 9 N 9 Z O < U ~ O u b. m 5 yM1~' 9 0 Y vn Z E= ~' V ` Q' ~ ~ I `o `o ~ o ~< ~ 3a x a a a~ ac ~€ 6~ 6E ~d A ~ q ~ q = ~, (J U 6 V 6 U 6 m a E~ E O E v'p~ F=~ F y E=~ Z F ~ ( 8 e ` g Z 03 o 03 o 03 V J {iI ~ V C~ .Y L S u ~ L`c u Z'~ _ U e'. E Ui E Ue'. E `o o ~ b `o `o °e `o Z ~7 E c `° g E m i0 n x u x oz a~ 8 a ~!+ =s f F g 6~ ~ 6~ O 0 _ Vl m Y W Y 6 N Y {i7 q _ L O G G ` Y A e ~ y O Y V ` ° E C ` o_ o _ ~ : _ o_ A a`F Y.u a`GH iV 9 j ,Yn O 7 L m ~' d. m ~ _ ~ d ~ u ' U ~ ~ = e 3E= =? Y 3O °° Y _ u 9 ~~ V ~ C 7 V 7 7 = y a V ~~ L= Y A z~ a ~ U 3 a ~` m N yu en n mfso: d vE n , _ Z ~ v m a 3 ~ ~ ; O~ M tvi~ .Q mev ' G Y c d ~N X < y s u ° U ? p u s ~ - c o v J c m~ aavu m y . ~''; d ~~ F~ C 1~ Y n a a V ~ 6 f ~% a ~ m y a u y n C V 9 _~ _ x Y ~ °; V_ 6 C E ,}~ /\ its ~, ~ V L Z ~ m f .Y o _ L 3 S. Y VJ < T L m ~ O Z O ~a U U ~ O m c m e F o n e 0 e 0 o . ~ U . ~ m BEd ~ x - ~ e ~ 9 ~ e ~ 9 d _ ~ n a 9 m ~c V e C n . a V A L N C . a c G ' m C! u u ° o t. c ~ ~ u ~ u m Z E G E E p U y u u E u E ZO~ F~ F ~ ~~ _ ~ E= a F: a F `o C v n c C C ~ O d o 3 `o ~ ~ a ~ C `o ~ c ~ ~ y ~c ~S° E ~ c c ' E O >. ~ q ~ A Us Ua 6'mF3 Ja Ud q O ~ U U Y h o z m e 9 m .c p ' 9 C p u c C u a y iA 5 V ~ L ~ 6 O 6 m c ~ 9 m E C m C G m G ~ ~ C N O A C m C4 C ~ ~~ a`C7 C.c_ C m i`o m c ~ 9 9 0 C m e~ u e~ 0 c 9 c' ~ J W 1p ~ W 7 rt n A ~ c U y m A o_ m ;o m e c m r L 3 co• i= u ~= ° ' ~~ u c c m - E A c V U x _ O O M p ' .. rt 6 ~ O a i m ~ G O'g y > Y O 0 O C E u E p' zA c ~~ L ~ yo v i ~ c N OC f1 N T ` c b c E u 3 Z ~ "u ~ ~ v ma M ° u ° ? v c a' `~ ~ d n E$$ u` o u '_ u °- ". B ~' u w ~y 3 u u . . - O ~ a v n u a > O n ° 1O a E e o 9 ~a m ~ m ~ c ~O e fC 3.9 ~aw~ m n ~o~ Y O q u -~O G. uQ q V p ~ U U j A~c= V' y m c . p V ` 'J 8 p 0 N c ` > ~ G Y, u d m m y y M C L r' 6 C ei ip C Y N ui E 9 C > u N ~ L Q ~"' ~ 9 - u ~ V ' > n A O Y O u y . O' S>~ .~ O R '~ O C O ~ '6' O~ d ~ A ~~ V W . . ~~m 7 Y ~~L T ` C Y~yO ~ ~ ~LmP ¢ ~ S ~. ~ ~ OE E .eOY ~ m C u C u`9~ . o u e ' n `° ~ n n N J E u c v u E C ` _ n m o 4 A u o e E `~ N F 0 ' K ~ t0 ~ ` ~ Y u_ O u W :: c R R ~+ . ,8 „ r.. -u.e o- L O= Em o . - N r+~ o•m or ~u c c3 ` E>v V W FJ r) v °' E ~ °o c F a u .- o y n 5 C ~; ` ° ° ,y ~ § a $ o o - u e q y~ L V U' ^ ~ y V C j V O U rn C > > ^ o o. c ~ g ~ n ~ ~ .Nn c asaA_- o v u v c u m 0 v m u ~ B m ~ c n a C a O u~ A Y F n `O = 9 a r ~ e °~ u i m a K R'm9 C V Z O e U U Syr i O F_ H Z 5oa ~~~ ~a a ~v mz H 0 Z F O zF z~ oz <~ F_ ~pp f 2 U~ O U y V d C v. L U U m L ` U A Y O U „~ y y„= m~ ~„ U G y E y E v N u ~_~ `n e u gi b s ._ d e s L e~ m~_ n~' y ~ t Z u h s b~ E„~ u c k $ ~ „ E 3 ~~ ~ p Y7 m `o a .C $$ E y v .. $ o S c~ e r e u m `o ~ pu` .3 x .= e=~ ~~ ~ '~ R Y U C W L 6 C O m L ~ t 9 Y N y 0 9 j~ a~ O~ n 0 ~ y ~ 9 p O~ p` L n. E: Z` cR m ~ 9 9 o ~ ~ i ~ Z' °- ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ .. c o c y m 'c u " ~ ~ ' _r `o a w u C 6'p O y a ~ a 9 0 v~ y C Y O .~ ` q ~ 9 ~ ~ m__ y b ~ ~ a s A' 6 y a 9 ~ 2~ °u a:o 6 w a o E E~~~ 3~ Y E° u y ~ ~ . 9 s b E E `u o ~ ~ i0 a iS5 rv > > ~' ~ y ,'v '~ K F ~E !_ m ~ ~ ~ E ~' c ~ .°_ c ~ a Y u a ~= a 9 9 Y 3 Z` u n '0 3 v w a '~ ~ a u r a '„ o e b' o~ 0 3 ~~ o z ~ :7' Z O U O U rr a a a F ~$ u ~ g a n a ~O °~ O `o E E E p2 ` ff (~~J l ? o o °e g a `o a ° e ° e R ~ A R~ A m q ,C A W ~' 3$ ~ °a u $$ h a v n u °a u C t i Q E C i Q E Q E Q E ' N .~ ~ S A~ A' r A R ~ V u u u d a ma ~ EG = u EC u E~ u u EO c c o ~- Zp E 1!' F~ E"53 F~ f U c S s o s s za `03 c3 `03 `03 ~C o'p- Vj iil !~ G ~ Y V Y~ V V Y V V i ~.• Y ~`' ~ V ~' j T' j V W .> Ua E Uo. E Y U a E V U a E q tx13 W C3 0 0 0 o a `o Z h7 O z n .^ ~ a e ~ y m .°' ~ ? n c ~ y Q F 9 ~ ~ m O a i~ V r icl' O n y u c m y n u F C O $ $ _ O _ F O_ a ~' p u p e g g a a`i+.~ o:G a`ii~ a` fi v~ v~ v A v Y m H m n e o ~ y m > V YY a C^ ~ C u u0 3 J U 4i• ~ ~ o .~ O~ e u j o > ~ > C ~ A 4 u LYi R N V R Vi L y~ A n M m e n m E ~ m ~ n m e i .~ y~ o .~ ~~ C 3 ' 2 ~ ~ ~ N Q n ~ n _ n O a 3 u o ~ n ~ 3 ~ FO n y ~ = t o w ~-~ u t ~o. v ~ u- „= m ~' < y :7 Q m Y Y 3 a O d= $ n 3 c `0 3 u o ~ 9 ~ E 3~ G ~ y v f o 3> ~ a E_ C N 6 $ Ni .N N try N .~ 9 .„ R S Vl T O " Nf Y {31 U~ ~ n ->` u` b ~ a m a m e F ~ U v v = v a c C J m v~ Y 3 Q a„ = 3 i Y n O n ? . 0 ra U ~ a tl F 'v a m m Ica ~ ~ ~I o 0 $; a ~ d ~. ~ € , ~ '€ =i .a w t` d L` ~ ~ mZ E E y0 Z F c F°e yI F < Z d + u ` ~ u ` O o ~ E o ~ E UmC Um'G O O H O O c p x ~ iTi ~ • C ~ ~ Z ~ C Y ~€ p FF 0 a F a C O~ E'u .•- [:..d O m „~„ ~ O m Yr y a` m „ . i m $ E V - N 10 A Y C ~ N A N y J y `o E ; `o E $ yy W y ~ ^ e i I U c E c ~ ~ t E ° ,~' a s y d a' ~^ 4 r OO • a u° a a - Y ~p % ^ ~ - Y a qY P C N A ° ~ Y Y C n A C ~ _ a Y _ Z O ~ V Y 'J " C F ~ O ~L m G7 ~ a o ` _c F Y 3:_ f ,~ r ~ u r ~ c a c ~ n > 5 . m v ~ c a _ A . E u E ~ 'o ~ u o. [zcl ~I y ~ u ~- a °_~ s d ~~„ O O v Z O ~< U U ~ O .Z ~oaC ~j G. d ~Z =a~ " O Z ~„~ gZ~ ~~ Z m OZ F p~. V F_ p,p ~ 2 U m U d 5 rA d Z a° U e ~ ~ L ~I :7 m c 'v .~ 9 0 a € e ~d d ~ . E u E F a `oc z Ua ~`J'• o •~ u u ~' t m c O 9 :~ O 9 d O v m e c R 9 w c a w ;ma ~ .., c ~ 0 0 u oC t~f @ V ._ ~ V ~ W m 8 C y Y~ O y~ V u C L 'w ~ °. t`E e. me e W ~__ q e p 2 o ~ E ~ ryo~ C ~ C9 e ~ ~ .. L:1 8a w u ° - n L`a. '~° ~~' e m n 9 ~ w y C . R L. V L C w E m a ~ `o s ~. n 3 u Z O ~a U ~i. C m m e ~ ~ ti 'v ~ '~ .7y-Odl ~~ m O~ 0 e O ts~ ~j ~ ~ o ~< E:C ~g z$ N€ 9 S ~ T w U ~ u ~ ?_ ° ~ ~R m 'Z V Q y 3 C V N 6 i _ o ~ ~ u QOz >grD~ A_F~~ < A L U o Y u Vi 0 a $ r5j Y a E $ `c ~ E s L n` u -op u m'i u9e0~ uL r~~ i-'~. m YC E S3UmG A C T ~ C ^.f O ~ O C h Zm `°•~~ v °~ 9 ~ O Z $ ._ ~° ~•p E o .7 'O O A c 0 6~ C 6 y y n T R N _ f ~_ O e=° O m~ ~ o e e Y F f O n ~1e 'o E ~~ a`i~.f ~ im' $ E ~ `u u u v.°- ° v `u u u y u c .Y. E O: ~ `° u° E c .. ~ ~ :i Lyu cL my .V-. y an mu C L j .3 N F L T. Z L N C C~ Q a L ~=~ H_ r~ L F H g 3>_Y~ F~ A 3> C ' C R `~ N C q" try N~ Y Vl A A rf R~ Vl O m 0 .c $ v 'i) 8 0 R p y C G C L O c .E y 0 Z C C •~. ~ Y y T C ~$= $ .2 ~0 C V r O O s: u E ._ ._ z E~ n u= V m e u v ._ u m ~ r m Y m 0 0 ~_ O L X U T a s u .`°. v°d ~ F Y u- v n g `° `°p v i u= - _~ r 3 L A ~ _a u e y~~ L =~ r 8 c L$ X 2 5 e E c~ ~ ,o ~-_' ~ a `u ~ 61 ~ u .- E n w ~~ m 3~ ~ E u ~ .`•'n .0.. M M E v n .E `n E r 'v ~.• c q V C ~A.. y _ y5J ~ e a e y < ~ V O a u ~ V v, u C' ~ v O O O 0 F U U ~r O m ~, ~ c F a c '_' Z m $ u ~od~,' ~j ~Gg 0 0 ~~ ~' ~y ate. ~€ H€ ~€ ~ L V Y .a .y $ = ~ e ._ o ._ U V ~ y ma EJi E =J! y0~ F= F ~ GZ ~,..S L, V Te T~ S~ a `o ~ E c~ E `~~ E C~ E `° E `m E a pEp a z, UU~ U'J~C U'J~~C ~ o e : ° $ °.J °~ ~ OZ e•~- ~~ ~ u ~ .a CFt.' F N € o T o. _ ~ _ n p. o m ~ A M c° ,. n ~ C o 2 O v E•e u ~ ~ u+ ~3Z E E 3 'o V C ~. a` m $ E a a` `o p ~ C_ C y L C = ~, C V V ~ V ~' U (/ y] R V L~ i0 ~` V ii (~ nr~V C6 C03 a C JU u -; v c '_ nq Vi L V g C m C V ~~ N C.~Ay ~ 38 ~ o ~ .' ~ h -'' o e c ° e '- < U O c y r V .~ A b C_ ` C T ~` L 'J C L C .i C 'J. C e u~ E; u e E .'-' N E u' m -~'~ y m u~ i 'v y"~ y Vi ~ C V L V C ~~ - E y Z O O V C ~ m J S .' ~ c-~', - a C m v a o m y u ~~ 'v v r ~, u m u i ~ .3 n H u G ~.A., vu ~ y o 9. G. ~i' ~ rt N c ., c a..u a m~$ Q as 3 c v n_ E e x w~ ~ G N U n 6 n e u 6 m U '~ z w Y L w C C a C s ., _ o . J ~ _ _ y a ~/•y G_ 9 n9 C J G O V V y v V_ m VJ VI U '/1 U V ~` T n `~ F e v < ~ e 3 O e U U ~ Y m u S a 6 C hz E H =pa ` ~~~ °= o q ° z a A o o, _ ~ a u H ~ 6 E . E d ~ A .a7 p u a u ~ m~ EG E ~ ~ ° F e Z p ' I f ~ d ~ ` m ` Z o '3 o m E O c sf T~ 6 Ua' E Uo'O `o `o Z ~ O Z >A> A C F O L t 6 C a g V`~ iO E ._c F O u D ~ O ~~ 'o ` a o c o ~ - d~ - m o`. v, a ~ C > a t0 O A V i ~ C 3 ~ m m 3 . U " ` v ~.. ` p O i b O ~ ha u n ~~a u z~ a u e e E c e m a c 2. - o a Z -' 3 3 v p 1c1 > o f m e n u c u e ~° e L~ Q V ._ 9 '^ L g $ R V C J O ~ q ~ N m ~~ m N ~ N ' r' ~ f g ~ c_ t, ~ ~_ u E u e 6 t - ~ ~ e 0 u L __ e O O F. V ~ 0 0 ~\ 4 Sa ; - E :'. // \j l A `„ ~ / ` Z a f m „ m „ m o a m e a u ~ a v ~ \/ ~+ v ~ L Q m L C m O Z O ~e U U ~ \/ ~ ~~' =oa ~' < ~I 41 C1 _m z n'O Z F Q Z Y s O 5 Z ({~ C Z F F e~ U F , :J ~ i {ys. U iz Ha R C ~ N 04 o~ q O 8g ~.` 'E E E n ~ u ~ u ._ E Z r C C T o •E y .= YAn U u C 9 ~'O a R ~ p 6 H ~ _ 0 c `0 ~ ~9 - c W w d LL .~. ~ S y oC n a C ~ V n u .. Q a 'v `c ~ a ~ ~ A o U L9 ~ m L c n A R x y ~ L: ~ L ~ O O < 0 y V . .. U his: cNy.~ r .~ is L n p 3 ,_, <~ .u~ c L ` - u o E~c u ._ T~ o` '/+ ~._ a y - u ~ 3 a n ~ ~ .. aa8 ~ u ' ~ nA ~- u s ~ h `u n °- v a = ~' 0 3 E ~ u y J ~ 9 V .J C ~ u S C ' 7 •A.. C .Q ~ C gag ~ ~ W Y S r ~ °i V 5~ C m ~J C i ~ ~ W Z O ~a U ~ C m e F _ 9 O m ;t ~~~4 0 ~~ ~~ a ~ .i A mp ~ 8 u~ u Z m E a z F s ~..' A e }~ Y Z d p ~ e = 5 ~ b e ~~~ V Um. O Z t~ Y La C1 _ m F ~ c o v _ f ~ 3 o m d` o v m e ~ A 9 i. ..~~ it. 3m O J 's d . C Y h L ~ ~ d P C. ~f ¢ v ODD Y ~ Y L ~ R Z r c=_ (~ _ ~ f ~ ~ ~ - OG = '2 _ Q U <y ~ ~ e ~ ~ Z lcL~7 ~ = m ~ < ~ T= u G Y C Q bC m pC ~ _ ~ a .'$ OH CJ 9 C n E eye ~ 9 .'y < Z s. u t ~ ~ y :v ~ =_ E r _ '~'~ Y _ n v~ v O 0 ~ u U ~ ~ 'E 9 a . ~ ~ ~ q V u u u ~ E E E c E e e m u G °' n p n` D ~ n ~` u' ~ ~ ' S 3 u a ~ ~ 3 0 3 ~ `o c 3 v ; ~c Y ~ ~ u ~ ~ R a ~ ~ °' A ~ 3 a h a a ~ A ~ A ~ V A A 6 U V m U U u V E F F V "c ~ u O, i `0 3 ~ `o `o ~ `o m .Y o ~ U ~ ~ U i~ U t~ U3U .n t~ u90U C y f 0 n -,~ F C N Q P ~i ~ N T !~1 _~ N T N e N N a e e m n n n e n o. ~. E ` u n ~+ u C C Z m ' ~ > _ C o L ~ ~ p. y ii C ~ ~ Q 'a c u G Q ~_ _ C O Z o F i i _ e u -_ i Y ^V ~ I= LNI q y Y Y o ~ r 3 ~ ~ °_ c ?, a = !_ i o. A T -J ~j. U U V n E E > F= F-' O O ~ ~ u U U r N r O n r ri h ~ ~ ~ e e . E E E E E a` u c ~ y a ~ s c ~ ' ~ e ~ ~ c O = E D ~ C =~ R V T R ~ U ~ T q T V T A~~ ^ a E 3 a H = v - ~ ° ~ E ~ u 'p' ~ .`a v'p ~ ~_m 3 E ~ v`~ ~v1 tR m` v`9 V O ~ 8 V n ^ 7 Y t 6 ~ ~ `O ~ n o t ~ e ~' ~ ~+ `o m C' w O 3 c ~ 3 a t ~ o .~ ~ 3 ~ _ ~ m 3 'E a' o. m' i ~ a Qu i °_ _' i c o ~ a' ~- E A A A r m n c w A A E A A E > > a ~ u ~ v ~ c > > > v' > > > U V U U U ~ V ~ V U V q V U U U U V U A U V E E E E > 'e ~ E ~~ E E E °' E E E F F F F ~ F ~ 'rY. ' u ,~u1 ~ ~ u ~ ~ V O O O O u a. u = V O ~ O u O O O C 0 O ~ 2.` 2.`c, 2` v t` 2^ c 2` ~ y L` r U U U U F U Cg (i r u :J U < U v v M T P N m 11 N ry M1 . N1 e O .. r I~1 N m e N I~ m ~~ r n n 0 N N N N r b e r ~o _ N ~'1 e N L n C C C V y '' U ~ c o % n C a' P F_ C i _ e .~ V1 > c J _ ~ y `° C r r y a c > ~ m C 7 E m O ` _ m O '~ m C O ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ` 6 n ~ c 6 m o n 6 ~ ~ U ~ c ° ~ U _~ Q Q. _ C O O O O m - s s a O N R~ N O e n 0 c S 5 C C V E C E N 6 Y ~ Y G Y E. L ~~ ` ~_ 6 Q 9 a Y Ji . ~' ~ ~" 3` E M ~ E !? a p .. v. 'u. W. ~. V:' 1! 7 V a C ' ~ E E= ` E . f . ` C~ Y v_ o" c'~ U o 2.` U i C 5 H ~. Z ~J F f ~i e e - N `Y c n :~ Z ,~ F ~ V) C ii y c V A V y Z a/ Y C L ~_ O Z C o f i ;~.. f, n